The Fine Article doesn't really go into how we're doing it wrong, beyond a passing mention of barefoot running, and some dissing of treadmills (which is hyperbolic and orthogonal to reality; you can run "correctly" or "badly" on a treadmill or on the street or trail).
I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes.
TL;DR, the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. When you do that, your knee is locked (or at least straight) as the foot lands, which transmits the force of the landing up your leg and into your lower back.
When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it.
I have a bum knee now, for unrelated reasons, so I can't run for the time being (or possibly ever again). I was, in fact, specifically warned against it by one of my array of bodyworkers just this past week. I kinda miss it sometimes, because it actually can be quite meditative, once you get into your rhythm.
EDIT: phrasing.
EDIT 2: The "wrong" under discussion in The Fine Article might have more to do with why we run than how. Though, if so, premising the argument in "evolution" is perhaps specious. Thanks, follow-ups, for pointing that out more clearly.
No offense to you personally, but it's kind of disconcerting that this is the top comment. You've outright admitted to only having "used to run a bit" -- and not very much, at that. But then go on to promote barefoot running as if you're somehow a fully qualified expert who knows enough to talk on the matter and declare barefoot running is _clearly_ the answer.
I'm not saying you're wrong or right. This shoed/barefoot discussion has been inflaming the running community for decades. But there's really no substantial evidence that barefoot running is better.
Anyway, I just think the way this was presented -- basically as fact -- is dangerous. And given that it's the top comment with very little pushback in the comments is kind of scary.
I've run consistently for the past 30 years, most often in the spirit of the article: long, slow, meditative runs. What my cross country coach in high school called Long Slow Distance ("limber up gentlemen, we'll be doing LSD today!"). Tried a fitbit for a while, found that reducing it to numbers took the joy out of it. I'm back to where I started: no accelerometers or earphones, outdoors, ideally on a trail. I don't go all that fast or do big miles, but it's pretty much where I'm happiest.
About bum knees: I've often been warned that running will ruin them, but I stopped running for two years in my mid-thirties due to work, and then blew out my knee in a frickin' coffee shop, of all places--because the muscles holding it together had weakened from not running. Major surgery, took forever to recover. Limped for well over a year and thought I might never run again. Got a new job and started biking to work--about 4 miles each way. Within a month the limp was gone, a month or so after that I was running again. Been six years and my knee feel great. If you haven't tried gentle cycling and it's an option, you may want to consider it. I think maybe the low-impact nature of cycling let the knee strengthen without being stressed, and once the strength was back, it could handle the stress.
TL;DR, the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner.
Any reputable running clinic will teach you to make contact with the ground at the middle of your foot with a slightly bent knee. That's just well understood, proper technique, regardless of footwear.
The real problem is people hitting the pavement without learning the basics of good technique because they think we're somehow "evolved" to just "do it right", which may be technically true but it's meaningless in practice.
>When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it.
There's more to it than that. Please make sure that you are pushing off with your heel. Many people assume that barefoot running is the same as running on the balls of your feet, but if, after your toes touch, you aren't subsequently landing and pushing off with your heel, you are likely to injure yourself, and more seriously than if you didn't barefoot run at all. The small, delicate toes in the forefoot are not meant to handle the load of landing and takeoff.
FYI: This movement doesn't feel natural or normal for most people until they have tried it a bunch - the muscles and flexibility for it aren't there. It took me about six weeks of practice, but I was not a particularly frequent runner - mostly because of the knee pain of running 'normally'. The pain was eliminated by running barefoot instead.
I read 'Born To Run', went out and bought a pair of vibrams, then did a nice jog around a lake, maybe 4-5km. I was running barefoot style, landing more towards my toes and I felt fantastic.
The next morning I discovered that apparently, this was the first time I'd ever really used my calves before. I walked like an old man for three days, trying my best not to cry during my stretches.
Over time, I got better and took it slow, and I still swear by thin-soled shoes, but I'd advise anyone interested: take it slow at first!
>I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes.
The single most important thing I've done for my running, is run more and lose weight. This is a universal thing. Everyone who gets good gets good via more running and losing weight. Running more can be hard. If there is a shoe that helps you do it, go for it. But as pace increases sometimes a shoe as minimal as a vibram can be problematic. Its certainly isn't necessary for everybody. People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.
I thought the barefoot/minimal part was not the focus of what we are doing wrong (I only run in Vibrams, it's plainly much better but you have to start incredibly slow and work up to it).
His point about what we're doing wrong was treating it as a speed based sport or a chore to do to be healthy, with a bunch of gadgets to mediate the experience, when it should be a relaxing, fun meditative practice where you disconnect from everyday stresses. I find that to be a very good point and I'm surprised people didn't find it clear. It explains the treadmill hate as well.
I never felt very good about running until I got Vibrams in my early 50s. They have steadily improved the shoe, but I think it could stand to have some more shock absorption in the ball of the foot area, where you land. The other unnatural thing we do is run on concrete and tarmac pavement. We also did not evolve to run on such hard surfaces for such great lengths. There are not too many places in the world where you can run on solid granite for long distances, which is the natural equivalent of modern pavement.
You're exactly right it's a big mess of conjecture. He's not done research or methodical testing.
Nutrition, excercise, running, all seem to make anyone comfortable giving advice, with even the smallest amount of anecdotal personal experience.
Why is it you can walk into a gym (or any place) and be told with such confidence the best way to run, eat, sleep?
It's not that I don't want to hear it, I'd love to hear how to best do these things. Just don't make every bit of advice you have an extrapolation of what worked for you or for what you saw work for one other guy.
Barefoot running sounds great to me. I like to do it, it feels good, it's very intuitive, it evokes the romance of nature, freedom, even spirituality. Does that prove the commercial products out there have no benefit? Does it prove everyone should switch to barefoot running? Does it mean I should go down to a gym and try to convince people to do it?
I am 53 and started running about 5 years ago. I started running using traditional running shoes, but after 3 months I almost gave up, due to my right knee (that had undergone ACL replacement surgery) constantly being sore.
Then I switched to Vibram's Five Fingers. I have now been running over 5 years wearing Vibram's and I have no knee pain and no major injuries. If you would like more info on barefoot running, the book "Born to Run" is a good read.
Try out a pair of Vibrams, you will never go back!
For anyone considering running in Vibrams, take note that the evidence suggests they actually promote injury. I haven't researched it deeply, but this article seems like a good starting point:
Don't you lose about 1/3rd of your stride when you strive to land on the front of your foot as opposed to the heel? Doing heel first lets me put my leg way in front of me as I land on it, then roll over it and push forward once my foot is directly under my body, like a spring. This means longer, more powerful strides. To land on the front of the foot, my leg would have to be very close to my body, meaning shorter, quicker strides. I tried doing this style of running - landing on the front of my foot as opposed to the heel, but I found myself having to use strides way shorter than what I'm used to. Is this correct, i.e. are the strides you have to use noticeably shorter and I would just have to get used to it if I want to do it that way?
> The Fine Article doesn't really go into how we're doing it wrong
The way I understood it is that it's wrong for it to be considered a "sport" rather than a "meditation", that is, it should be less about competition and more about relaxation.
> the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. When you do that, your knee is locked (or at least straight) as the foot lands, which transmits the force of the landing up your leg and into your lower back.
Any of a sufficiently competent teacher, sufficient miles, or sufficient speed will train you not to do that.
Where does walking fit into this? As a person that does not run but walks i notice the wear on the outer back step to wear more than other parts of the heal. I walk in a straight stride with no duck walking. Always wondered with all the miles i put in and a generally fit body, if i am doing it wrong?
Aside from the form, I also wonder about the distance. Is it healthy to run long distances at a constant heartrate vs interval training?
As described in an article linked in the one posted, humans seem to have evolved to run long distances [1]. I wonder how we could reconcile that with the fact that long distance running at constant pace seems to be bad for our hearts [2].
> The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent.
I always tell my gf that you can differentiate the people who have only started ahtletics- or sports-related things after the age of 20 by looking at the way they run. When you're a kid and you play football (soccer) or basketball all day long with your buddies on a hard pitch you learn how to run correctly, don't know if that happens by instinct or because the terrain forces you do to so.
There's also a difference between running (barefoot or not) in terrain, as opposed to running on paved roads - so in a sense things started to go wrong with the Romans (in Europe).
> When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it.
I'd encourage even an experienced runner to try and do a lap around the track barefoot. It really does highlight the importance of form.
Treadmills don't prepare you for uneven surfaces so they are somewhat harmful in excess. Hard flat level ground is not uncommon in nature, but the ideal stride is reactive not simply repeated endlessly.
The best example I can give is a long stairwell with one step 1/2 an inch off is liable to trip people up. Yet running up uneven surfaces is easy when your paying attention.
Ever since this became a meme, I have made a habit of noticing other runners' strides. Women almost never are heel-strikers. Men land a little farther back in general, but still more of them hit mid foot than on the heel. Not every shoe will work for every foot, but I don't think that one needs to go as far as the five-fingers shoes.
Ultra-long distance dudes from Mexico the Tarahumara allegedly run like this. I also heard a story about some guy in Aussie who ran like that - won some crazy long distance race too, smashing the record. It is true that a man will beat a horse in a race if the man is allowed to pick the distance. How about that for evolution? The ultimate persistence hunter.
You can still run touching the front of the foot and with the knee bent while running shoes, though it's true "barefoot" running forces you to do it in that way
I ran cross country in high school and I just ran barefoot around the neighborhood. I'd run 10 miles barefoot sometimes. I had Vibrams but didn't like em as much.
The great thing about running barefoot is that you can feel the ground under your feet. It makes it much more interesting to run and less boring.
> he believes running barefoot is more natural—and less likely to result in injury.
This has always bothered me, and, even on HN, it still bothers me. Too many experts.
I ran track and XC (HS, DIII, then DI for a season), did 100+ miles/week, won a half marathon, etc. Reasonably successful without any injuries, over ~15 years. Even I would get constant advice from everyone. Still do.
"You're running too much." "Your back looks too stiff." "Your shoes don't fit." "Don't do that with your hands." "You're landing on your heel too much."
Eventually you stop listening to everyone, even your coach. Running (and most sports) would do well to follow science and have a cited source following every statement. It's a little absurd when someone tells me I'm going to get injured if I don't do more barefoot running. I've been wearing this same model of Brooks shoe since I was 15. If you can give me a link to an article on Pubmed, I might read it.
Yes, it's deeply frustrating. I can confirm what you're saying and I only run about 30 miles a week, but I can run a six minute mile and a sub-20 5k (none of which are humblebrags by the way, that's at most a year of consistent training if you're younger than 50 and starting with a healthy weight). I find the exact same sentiments from people all the time. It's maddening having people telling me what they believe is good for my body with no attempt at research.
I'll offer a few of my favorites:
"Wow, your maximum heart rate is way too high. You should slow down."
"Your resting heart rate seems pretty low, are you alright?"
"You're going to develop arthritis running that much."
"You shouldn't run outdoors on pavement that much, it's bad for your knees."
"You shouldn't run on a treadmill that much, it's bad for your knees."
"Your stride is too short."
The worst is when people take legitimate science, or attempts at legitimate science, and use vague pseudoscience that resembles it to prescribe something I don't need. No, my heart rate is not too high at 215, I assure you, despite what your catch all formula says. No, I don't need to go barefoot running. No, I don't need to run at exactly 140bpm to be at my personal "fat burning zone."
"The first thing I’d say is, you’re probably not doing it right. Most people dislike running because they have memories of things like running for a bus. That kind of running is usually deeply unpleasant, almost vomit-inducing. Most beginners give up when they get injured because they’ve done too much, too soon. Most of the benefits from running derive from going very slowly."
I find this premise to be correct - and can get people who say "I could never run X miles" to do so, enjoyable sometimes, just by slowing down their pace.
However, even as someone who is a running apparel ambassador who runs up to 80 miles per week, races multiple marathons and ultramarathons a year - I have a family, a full-time job, and occasional freelance work!
So even I would love to go on 2-4 hour mountain trail runs daily, it is hard to find the time to do this. Hell, I have a treadmill in my garage to sneak in shorter runs and still be home around my family.
And I'm more than happy to spread the gospel of long, slow distance running - as it is meditative, mood stabilizing, and underpins aerobic development and fat burning.
But I am willing to suggest all sorts of activity: hiking, soccer, basketball, 5K run training, cycling, mountain biking, marathon training, track workouts, climbing, long urban walks, tennis, weight training with treadmill jogging for warmups and cool down, boxing workouts, etc. I do think the premise that it's wrong to treat running as a sport is flawed - I think we can treat it as a sport, or not treat it as a sport. Or both! That depends on the individual.
If it gets you moving and your heart rate elevated into those aerobic ranges, do what works for you. Running barefeet in nature for hours at a time for the simple sake of running is great - but doing something that fits into your interests, geography, and time schedule can provide a great, long-term balance to the modern life.
Seconding long walks. It's easy! You just look around for something interesting, and let your feet carry you toward it - they know what to do, and they will if you let them. Repeat as necessary. When you start to run out of puff, look for interesting things nearer home than not.
Stay away from roads and sidewalks, if you can. Trees give shade, and shade is cool and pleasant and helps you husband your energy for finding interesting things, rather than sweating.
Keep your phone in your pocket. Keep your earbuds there, too. They put you somewhere other than where you are, and what's the point of that? Besides, you can't chat with people if your ears are blocked.
Chat with people. Say hello. Make eye contact. Exercise the social skills that help you make unplanned interactions mutually enjoyable. We don't do that any more. We should. Many fear it. Do not blame them. Give them the opportunity to overcome that fear, if they so choose. If they don't, leave them in peace. Another time, perhaps.
Pictures are okay, but be sparing. Use them when there's something you'll want to share. Don't use them so much that you forget why you want to share something. Me, I'm an amateur photographer. For me, pictures are often part of the point. Unless they are for you, too, use them as aide-memoire - not in place of it.
Cut through the woods. Go up hills. Go down hills. Go through streams, or over if they're narrow enough. Remind yourself of the simple pleasure to be had in using your body - jumping, climbing, shifting your balance to go down a 45° slope on your feet instead of your face.
Take chances. Don't shy away from decrepit buildings. Investigate them. There's always a way in, and it's amazing what's to be found there. Be aware of your environment, and be careful - not everyone you meet this way is friendly. But many are. Don't let fear hold you back, because you'll always wonder what you missed. And this life is transitory, anyway. Don't waste the opportunities that come along while you're living it.
Wear shoes, sturdy and comfortable as you like. You don't want the thing that holds you back to be that you'll tear up your feet if you go that way, either. For buildings, I recommend eight- or nine-hole logger boots - welted full-grain leather with good, arch-supporting insoles. Take care of them. They'll take care of you.
(I always wear boots like that. I may be biased in my recommendation. But they've stopped more holes than I can count from ending up in my feet. Wax polish, thinly applied, and buffed in long strokes with a damp - not wet - rag. No dress shoes ever looked so fine.)
Above all, enjoy yourself. Enjoy meeting the people and places you meet. Enjoy your environment, and the changes you make in it over the course of a day's peregrination. Enjoy the changes your environment makes in you. Enjoy not giving a fuck about email and parking. Enjoy the feeling of using your body, instead of just inhabiting it. Enjoy being where you are. Enjoy the ache of well-worked muscles and the stretch of your ribs as you breathe deeper than you can when you spend all day sitting down. Enjoy the deep sleep that comes of exhaustion honestly earned. Enjoy the fresh eyes with which you wake. Enjoy a simple pleasure no longer forgotten.
>> "You are not your typical jogger, are you? In fact, you hate the term."
> "The fact is, I am a jogger, but it has connotations of pastel tracksuits and sweatbands from the 1980s and sort of stinks of Thatcherism and Reaganomics, and all that individualism. Runner just sounds cooler, doesn’t it?"
I find this portion of the interview remarkable at a meta level.
1) Associating the word "jogger" with conservative politics and individualist philosophy is absolutely bizarre to me. Why? Because it happened to grow popular during the 1980's? Does that mean that the x86 computer revolution has conservative connotations also? I thought that JFK popularized jogging back in the 60's, anyway. I'm so confused here.
2) Feeling the need to rename things in order to avoid connotations, even if the renaming makes little sense, is a curious impulse. The word "jogging" has some distinct layers of meaning, that are lost when you simply collapse it into "running". If you DO somehow negatively link jogging to Ronald Reagan, then wouldn't it be better to try and coin a new term?
3) I find this sort of exchange more and more common on the Internet these days. Discussing jogging, or what one ate for breakfast that morning... and seamlessly segueing in and out of politics or culture war banter. Not so long ago, that would be considered awkward and jarring (quite frankly, it would still be considered awkward and jarring if the subject had expressed a pro-Reagan view instead). Until quite recently, basic social norms would have one tiptoe into such things more gingerly. An interesting shift.
Another recently published running book is about "The Raven" a streak runner running 8 miles everyday for over 42 years. 125,000 miles; 5x around the earth; to the moon and back.
I'm lucky enough to live in Miami and run with him sometimes. When he started the streak he went barefoot and later began wearing shoes, if you can call them that, his favorite are NB with about 2,500 miles on them that seem to have more hole(s) than material left.
If you can, do a run with the Raven and get a nickname, if not please get his book:
The title says "We're doing it all wrong", but after reading the article it hardly says much about what we are doing wrong. The only wrong it talks about is treadmill and that's it.
"Treadmill is bad because it was invented as a torture device and one famous person died three years after doing it excessively. It is like running without any of the good stuff".
I remember reading about a study that found correlation between footwear and injuries. Neither group had less injuries, but the types of injuries were different between the different shoe groups. So pick your poison I guess. (Sorry don't have source on me)
Chris McDougall's book, "Born to Run", is another source that's been out for a while. It focuses on endurance running, but also heavily on barefoot or nearly-barefoot running.
What barefoot forces you is to restart that process at very basic level. Your feet are sensitive, if you stomp on the ground as you do with shoes (especially amortizing running shoes) you'll quickly see the problem.
It makes your movement way more subtle, soft, supple and also redistributes effort on the whole limb chain.
I wish the interview was a bit more substantial, but I like the exercise should be free/gyms are bad (exaggeration mine) idea. Gyms are like skyways (eg in Minneapolis), or like mass transit stations surrounded by parking: they detract from the vibrancy of street life and subvert their purpose.
By that logic, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities do the same. Not everyone uses a gym to run on a treadmill, or even to do cardio-based exercises.
Huh. I would think most sidewalk users consider runners a nuisance. I certainly do. Street life is more vibrant when the people you're sharing the pathway with go about the same speed.
The purpose of a mass transit system is to reduce contention for housing by letting a city's population diffuse over a larger land area. Parking should amplify this purpose by expanding the amount of land served by the system cost-effectively (relative to more densely packing stations in low-density areas).
With regard to gyms specifically, in much of the country, weather extremes are enough to deter all but the most hardcore badasses from outdoor exercise for much of the year. My alternative to running indoors when it's 110 or -20 is to not run.
I don't think we're doing it wrong, not more than sitting down for more than 8 hours a day, at least.
I'm an avid runner. I agree when the barefoot movement talks about using your legs, knees and ankles as springs, and that too cushioned shoes let you beat the road without having to adapt, replacing some short-term discomfort by perhaps long term injury caused by bashing your stiff legs on the road for long distances.
But I also sit down most of the day on weekdays, and even though I stretch, that spring is mostly gone after a long workday. I run too heavily then, and I really prefer to have some protective footwear to compensate for my inflexibility on those days.
Another problem is that our prehistoric selves didn't run on hard asphalt for hours, which many of us have to do in our current environment.
So, even for those of us who are fit and athletic, this is more about getting the balance right considering our lifestyle and environment. We might have evolved to run, but not on asphalt and not after sitting down the whole day.
Don't clock up miles barefoot if/when your core physical strength or muscle flexibility don't allow feline agility. You're at least as likely to get injured. Adapt to the situation and listen to your body.
Something that I noticed recently is that if speed isn't a major goal, breathing through the nose is a lot more healthy. In through the nose, out through the nose.
First, it filters incoming air of particulates like dust and pollen--gross stuff you don't want in your lungs. Over an hour of running, you can easily breathe 600L of air, in a city, that's a lot of pollution.
Second, it calms you. Breathing through the nose is a meditation exercise that automatically calms your mind.
Third, it reduces dehydration. Most of the water not lost through sweat and through the skin is lost through evaporation from the mouth. Through the nose instead, the same filtration system that keeps dust particles out serves as a condensation site for some of the moisture that would otherwise exit from your lungs.
Problem is, you can't run super fast breathing through your nose because of the limitation in breath volume from the restricted pathway. The article is right; IMO you should not run faster than what you can manage through nose breathing alone.
I find it interresting that no one questions the "we are born to run" claim. I have seen very little evidence for that. We are able to run, but that does not mean that running is a good way for us to move in general.
Having reached 50+ my estimate is that only 1 in 20 of the people i have known and who has been running still do. Perhaps even less.
You simply get too many injuries. Your cortisol levels rise. You destroy your joints etc. etc.
I also find it very hard to imagine that running would have been better for some imaginable forefathers who had to run barefoot in nature with no roads.
> The researchers identified a range of physical traits that suggest human ancestors evolved as distance runners. The adaptations helped them chase down prey and compete more effectively with the speedier carnivores on the open plains of Africa, the study says.
> The researchers say adaptations for running stretch back more than two million years, allowing humans to evolve from our apelike ancestors Australopithecus.
> "We think running is one of the most transforming events in human history," Bramble added. "We are arguing the emergence of humans is tied to the evolution of running."
I suspect that the cause of that is running on pavement. Doing that for decades is hard on the knees and joints. I wonder if there would be more people in the over-50 age group still running if they had spent their younger years running on grass or sand. I don't have any evidence that they would, but it's an interesting question.
I used to buy into the "running naturally" argument sold from Vibram, but it's the same pseudo-science that justifies buying juicers and shit. I was used to run for years. I used vibrams for 3 or 4 months and ended up completely destroyed, unable to run for a while. This was like 10 years ago, and more and more people have been calling on their bullshit since then.
The article mentions hunting by running as an evolutionary adaptation suggesting running distances, not necessarily sprinting.
I have to imagine running like hell to escape predators as a major part of our evolutionary past. It would seem consistent with the effectiveness of high intensity interval training as well as how satisfying the feeling of exhaustion after running as fast as you can for a while.
Although, I don't know of any predators that hadn't the speed to catch a human. I think we always must have had the tools and smarts and friends around to make us a dangerous pray.
If we are born/evolved to run, why do we do it mostly when it's useless to us (i.e. running in circles)?
Running as a sport is, in essence, forcing ourselves to do something we supposedly needed so much as a species that we evolved to be good at it. Our lifestyle has changed dramatically and we obviously don't need it much anymore.
Perhaps we should be running instead of walking whenever possible? I used to do that when I was younger and more impatient (I hated taxis, too), but having sweaty clothes isn't socially acceptable in most cases. Perhaps some research to alleviate this problem would help?
> On the phone from London, the author told National Geographic how he was inspired by his Irish uncle, who ran in the Olympics, and why he believes running barefoot is more natural—and less likely to result in injury.
I stopped reading right here. Ask a podiatrist if they've seen a rise in plantar fasciitis as a result of barefoot running. Not everyone has the biomechanics to jump into barefoot running[1]. Not everyone who has the biomechanics can simply transition to barefoot running[2] - you have to ease into it[3].
As soon as you assign species-wide labels and claim something is wrong, assume it's a clickbaity title that will likely follow Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
"Most beginners give up when they get injured because they’ve done too much, too soon. Most of the benefits from running derive from going very slowly."
There are a lot of reasons to run, but if general fitness is the goal, I've found that sprinting, and in particular uphill sprinting, is the most effective and time-efficient.
If you really want to go for efficiency sprints on an exercise bike are about as time efficient as you can get. 30 seconds flat out, 30 seconds slow x5 and you are 90% of the way there. The stress on your joints is way less than running too.
Yeah, I really don't think we were made to outrun ostriches or any animal, really. Saying so set off a red light with me at the very start of the article. We can set traps and scavenge already dead bodies - thats pretty much it.
Most of our actual calories were from plants/berries/corn/root vegetables. We were able to do very well for ourselves, calorically speaking, when we cooked/boiled those foods.
Barefoot running and even wearing thin soled shoes restricts you to a certain kind of terrain. I participated in an alpine marathon last weekend and the terrain was quite technical. Everybody was wearing trail running shoes. I have weak ankles which are prone to pronation (he he), so a good shoe is absolutely crucial to me for running in rugged terrain.
I agree running has gotten to be muddied by the complications of technology. It's meant to be an archaic practice emphasizing a meditative state. The process should be focused solely on meditative benefits, with physical benefits coming as a secondary benefit.
55 yo and have run close to daily for 45 of them with minimal injuries. I land on my forefoot and then put the heel down softly, the shoe makes little difference other than an overly high heel prohibits that movement.
These claims about how we're running in the wrong way because we should be running barefoot all seem to rest on the premise that that is how we evolved. The problem I have with that is they neglect to mention there weren't any concrete roads or sidewalks around when our running abilities evolved either, so who's to say our anatomy was ever designed to work on such hard surfaces? Sure if you can manage to run barefoot on only natural surfaces it might make sense, but this is never mentioned by anyone.
Our anatomy evolved to work on almost all surfaces. The early homo erectus that could not run on a surface was genetically less fit. Our gait changes slightly depending on what surfaces we run on; loose rock, sand, packed dirt, or concrete. Not being able to run on concrete would mean our ancestors would have avoided rocky areas... which they did not.
I've had a several pairs of their EVOs (which seems to have been replaced by their Stealth and Primus lines)
I loved them, even if they did wear them out fairly quickly (I went through a pair in a little under a year.) That is largely because they were very comfortable and I ended up wearing them for more than just running though. They're the only minimalist shoe I've tried that had an adequately sized toe box.
I also recently got a pair of their canvas 'Mata' everyday shoes and can vouch for their comfort.
I've used the Scott and Hiker models as my winter shoes for 5 years now. Walking 2-6 miles daily in Montana winters. Disliked the Hiker, the molding between the sole and the top was flimsy, the Scott is much better IMO but ice-salt will wreck their appearance if your don't take care of them. They can't handle smooth ice, but neither do most regular shoes without some assistance anyways.
I own multiple pairs of Vivos for casual wear — most of them developed holes in the soles pretty quickly. I still buy them because they're affordable when on sale, and look fairly decent.
We didn't evolve. Anything more than micro-evolution is a lie and it's very easy to see that it's wrong - if you want to. But I have to admit it's a very popular lie and people swing words like scientific to make it impressive. Of course much depends on this lie for many people. They can do whatever they want because they are just a buch of random cells, right?
rosser|8 years ago
I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes.
TL;DR, the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. When you do that, your knee is locked (or at least straight) as the foot lands, which transmits the force of the landing up your leg and into your lower back.
When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it.
I have a bum knee now, for unrelated reasons, so I can't run for the time being (or possibly ever again). I was, in fact, specifically warned against it by one of my array of bodyworkers just this past week. I kinda miss it sometimes, because it actually can be quite meditative, once you get into your rhythm.
EDIT: phrasing.
EDIT 2: The "wrong" under discussion in The Fine Article might have more to do with why we run than how. Though, if so, premising the argument in "evolution" is perhaps specious. Thanks, follow-ups, for pointing that out more clearly.
joekrill|8 years ago
I'm not saying you're wrong or right. This shoed/barefoot discussion has been inflaming the running community for decades. But there's really no substantial evidence that barefoot running is better.
Anyway, I just think the way this was presented -- basically as fact -- is dangerous. And given that it's the top comment with very little pushback in the comments is kind of scary.
johnny99|8 years ago
About bum knees: I've often been warned that running will ruin them, but I stopped running for two years in my mid-thirties due to work, and then blew out my knee in a frickin' coffee shop, of all places--because the muscles holding it together had weakened from not running. Major surgery, took forever to recover. Limped for well over a year and thought I might never run again. Got a new job and started biking to work--about 4 miles each way. Within a month the limp was gone, a month or so after that I was running again. Been six years and my knee feel great. If you haven't tried gentle cycling and it's an option, you may want to consider it. I think maybe the low-impact nature of cycling let the knee strengthen without being stressed, and once the strength was back, it could handle the stress.
zzalpha|8 years ago
Any reputable running clinic will teach you to make contact with the ground at the middle of your foot with a slightly bent knee. That's just well understood, proper technique, regardless of footwear.
The real problem is people hitting the pavement without learning the basics of good technique because they think we're somehow "evolved" to just "do it right", which may be technically true but it's meaningless in practice.
Edit: cleaned up the tone a bit.
WalterSear|8 years ago
There's more to it than that. Please make sure that you are pushing off with your heel. Many people assume that barefoot running is the same as running on the balls of your feet, but if, after your toes touch, you aren't subsequently landing and pushing off with your heel, you are likely to injure yourself, and more seriously than if you didn't barefoot run at all. The small, delicate toes in the forefoot are not meant to handle the load of landing and takeoff.
FYI: This movement doesn't feel natural or normal for most people until they have tried it a bunch - the muscles and flexibility for it aren't there. It took me about six weeks of practice, but I was not a particularly frequent runner - mostly because of the knee pain of running 'normally'. The pain was eliminated by running barefoot instead.
mabbo|8 years ago
The next morning I discovered that apparently, this was the first time I'd ever really used my calves before. I walked like an old man for three days, trying my best not to cry during my stretches.
Over time, I got better and took it slow, and I still swear by thin-soled shoes, but I'd advise anyone interested: take it slow at first!
jackmott|8 years ago
The single most important thing I've done for my running, is run more and lose weight. This is a universal thing. Everyone who gets good gets good via more running and losing weight. Running more can be hard. If there is a shoe that helps you do it, go for it. But as pace increases sometimes a shoe as minimal as a vibram can be problematic. Its certainly isn't necessary for everybody. People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.
freshhawk|8 years ago
His point about what we're doing wrong was treating it as a speed based sport or a chore to do to be healthy, with a bunch of gadgets to mediate the experience, when it should be a relaxing, fun meditative practice where you disconnect from everyday stresses. I find that to be a very good point and I'm surprised people didn't find it clear. It explains the treadmill hate as well.
jackfoxy|8 years ago
WhitneyLand|8 years ago
Nutrition, excercise, running, all seem to make anyone comfortable giving advice, with even the smallest amount of anecdotal personal experience.
Why is it you can walk into a gym (or any place) and be told with such confidence the best way to run, eat, sleep?
It's not that I don't want to hear it, I'd love to hear how to best do these things. Just don't make every bit of advice you have an extrapolation of what worked for you or for what you saw work for one other guy.
Barefoot running sounds great to me. I like to do it, it feels good, it's very intuitive, it evokes the romance of nature, freedom, even spirituality. Does that prove the commercial products out there have no benefit? Does it prove everyone should switch to barefoot running? Does it mean I should go down to a gym and try to convince people to do it?
chunk_manbeef|8 years ago
I am 53 and started running about 5 years ago. I started running using traditional running shoes, but after 3 months I almost gave up, due to my right knee (that had undergone ACL replacement surgery) constantly being sore.
Then I switched to Vibram's Five Fingers. I have now been running over 5 years wearing Vibram's and I have no knee pain and no major injuries. If you would like more info on barefoot running, the book "Born to Run" is a good read.
Try out a pair of Vibrams, you will never go back!
akvadrako|8 years ago
https://deadspin.com/the-scientific-case-against-vibrams-fiv...
Jugurtha|8 years ago
Basically, these people run 400 miles or something bare feet.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnwIKZhrdt4
Asooka|8 years ago
js8|8 years ago
The way I understood it is that it's wrong for it to be considered a "sport" rather than a "meditation", that is, it should be less about competition and more about relaxation.
LeifCarrotson|8 years ago
Any of a sufficiently competent teacher, sufficient miles, or sufficient speed will train you not to do that.
ngold|8 years ago
nextos|8 years ago
As described in an article linked in the one posted, humans seem to have evolved to run long distances [1]. I wonder how we could reconcile that with the fact that long distance running at constant pace seems to be bad for our hearts [2].
[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/
paganel|8 years ago
I always tell my gf that you can differentiate the people who have only started ahtletics- or sports-related things after the age of 20 by looking at the way they run. When you're a kid and you play football (soccer) or basketball all day long with your buddies on a hard pitch you learn how to run correctly, don't know if that happens by instinct or because the terrain forces you do to so.
e12e|8 years ago
tnecniv|8 years ago
I'd encourage even an experienced runner to try and do a lap around the track barefoot. It really does highlight the importance of form.
Retric|8 years ago
The best example I can give is a long stairwell with one step 1/2 an inch off is liable to trip people up. Yet running up uneven surfaces is easy when your paying attention.
cafard|8 years ago
nthcolumn|8 years ago
raverbashing|8 years ago
mcappleton|8 years ago
The great thing about running barefoot is that you can feel the ground under your feet. It makes it much more interesting to run and less boring.
sndean|8 years ago
> he believes running barefoot is more natural—and less likely to result in injury.
This has always bothered me, and, even on HN, it still bothers me. Too many experts.
I ran track and XC (HS, DIII, then DI for a season), did 100+ miles/week, won a half marathon, etc. Reasonably successful without any injuries, over ~15 years. Even I would get constant advice from everyone. Still do.
"You're running too much." "Your back looks too stiff." "Your shoes don't fit." "Don't do that with your hands." "You're landing on your heel too much."
Eventually you stop listening to everyone, even your coach. Running (and most sports) would do well to follow science and have a cited source following every statement. It's a little absurd when someone tells me I'm going to get injured if I don't do more barefoot running. I've been wearing this same model of Brooks shoe since I was 15. If you can give me a link to an article on Pubmed, I might read it.
dsacco|8 years ago
I'll offer a few of my favorites:
"Wow, your maximum heart rate is way too high. You should slow down."
"Your resting heart rate seems pretty low, are you alright?"
"You're going to develop arthritis running that much."
"You shouldn't run outdoors on pavement that much, it's bad for your knees."
"You shouldn't run on a treadmill that much, it's bad for your knees."
"Your stride is too short."
The worst is when people take legitimate science, or attempts at legitimate science, and use vague pseudoscience that resembles it to prescribe something I don't need. No, my heart rate is not too high at 215, I assure you, despite what your catch all formula says. No, I don't need to go barefoot running. No, I don't need to run at exactly 140bpm to be at my personal "fat burning zone."
riku_iki|8 years ago
Which model exactly? :-)
rb808|8 years ago
ErikAugust|8 years ago
ErikAugust|8 years ago
"The first thing I’d say is, you’re probably not doing it right. Most people dislike running because they have memories of things like running for a bus. That kind of running is usually deeply unpleasant, almost vomit-inducing. Most beginners give up when they get injured because they’ve done too much, too soon. Most of the benefits from running derive from going very slowly."
I find this premise to be correct - and can get people who say "I could never run X miles" to do so, enjoyable sometimes, just by slowing down their pace.
However, even as someone who is a running apparel ambassador who runs up to 80 miles per week, races multiple marathons and ultramarathons a year - I have a family, a full-time job, and occasional freelance work!
So even I would love to go on 2-4 hour mountain trail runs daily, it is hard to find the time to do this. Hell, I have a treadmill in my garage to sneak in shorter runs and still be home around my family.
And I'm more than happy to spread the gospel of long, slow distance running - as it is meditative, mood stabilizing, and underpins aerobic development and fat burning.
But I am willing to suggest all sorts of activity: hiking, soccer, basketball, 5K run training, cycling, mountain biking, marathon training, track workouts, climbing, long urban walks, tennis, weight training with treadmill jogging for warmups and cool down, boxing workouts, etc. I do think the premise that it's wrong to treat running as a sport is flawed - I think we can treat it as a sport, or not treat it as a sport. Or both! That depends on the individual.
If it gets you moving and your heart rate elevated into those aerobic ranges, do what works for you. Running barefeet in nature for hours at a time for the simple sake of running is great - but doing something that fits into your interests, geography, and time schedule can provide a great, long-term balance to the modern life.
throwanem|8 years ago
Stay away from roads and sidewalks, if you can. Trees give shade, and shade is cool and pleasant and helps you husband your energy for finding interesting things, rather than sweating.
Keep your phone in your pocket. Keep your earbuds there, too. They put you somewhere other than where you are, and what's the point of that? Besides, you can't chat with people if your ears are blocked.
Chat with people. Say hello. Make eye contact. Exercise the social skills that help you make unplanned interactions mutually enjoyable. We don't do that any more. We should. Many fear it. Do not blame them. Give them the opportunity to overcome that fear, if they so choose. If they don't, leave them in peace. Another time, perhaps.
Pictures are okay, but be sparing. Use them when there's something you'll want to share. Don't use them so much that you forget why you want to share something. Me, I'm an amateur photographer. For me, pictures are often part of the point. Unless they are for you, too, use them as aide-memoire - not in place of it.
Cut through the woods. Go up hills. Go down hills. Go through streams, or over if they're narrow enough. Remind yourself of the simple pleasure to be had in using your body - jumping, climbing, shifting your balance to go down a 45° slope on your feet instead of your face.
Take chances. Don't shy away from decrepit buildings. Investigate them. There's always a way in, and it's amazing what's to be found there. Be aware of your environment, and be careful - not everyone you meet this way is friendly. But many are. Don't let fear hold you back, because you'll always wonder what you missed. And this life is transitory, anyway. Don't waste the opportunities that come along while you're living it.
Wear shoes, sturdy and comfortable as you like. You don't want the thing that holds you back to be that you'll tear up your feet if you go that way, either. For buildings, I recommend eight- or nine-hole logger boots - welted full-grain leather with good, arch-supporting insoles. Take care of them. They'll take care of you.
(I always wear boots like that. I may be biased in my recommendation. But they've stopped more holes than I can count from ending up in my feet. Wax polish, thinly applied, and buffed in long strokes with a damp - not wet - rag. No dress shoes ever looked so fine.)
Above all, enjoy yourself. Enjoy meeting the people and places you meet. Enjoy your environment, and the changes you make in it over the course of a day's peregrination. Enjoy the changes your environment makes in you. Enjoy not giving a fuck about email and parking. Enjoy the feeling of using your body, instead of just inhabiting it. Enjoy being where you are. Enjoy the ache of well-worked muscles and the stretch of your ribs as you breathe deeper than you can when you spend all day sitting down. Enjoy the deep sleep that comes of exhaustion honestly earned. Enjoy the fresh eyes with which you wake. Enjoy a simple pleasure no longer forgotten.
Enjoy!
StevePerkins|8 years ago
> "The fact is, I am a jogger, but it has connotations of pastel tracksuits and sweatbands from the 1980s and sort of stinks of Thatcherism and Reaganomics, and all that individualism. Runner just sounds cooler, doesn’t it?"
I find this portion of the interview remarkable at a meta level.
1) Associating the word "jogger" with conservative politics and individualist philosophy is absolutely bizarre to me. Why? Because it happened to grow popular during the 1980's? Does that mean that the x86 computer revolution has conservative connotations also? I thought that JFK popularized jogging back in the 60's, anyway. I'm so confused here.
2) Feeling the need to rename things in order to avoid connotations, even if the renaming makes little sense, is a curious impulse. The word "jogging" has some distinct layers of meaning, that are lost when you simply collapse it into "running". If you DO somehow negatively link jogging to Ronald Reagan, then wouldn't it be better to try and coin a new term?
3) I find this sort of exchange more and more common on the Internet these days. Discussing jogging, or what one ate for breakfast that morning... and seamlessly segueing in and out of politics or culture war banter. Not so long ago, that would be considered awkward and jarring (quite frankly, it would still be considered awkward and jarring if the subject had expressed a pro-Reagan view instead). Until quite recently, basic social norms would have one tiptoe into such things more gingerly. An interesting shift.
will_brown|8 years ago
I'm lucky enough to live in Miami and run with him sometimes. When he started the streak he went barefoot and later began wearing shoes, if you can call them that, his favorite are NB with about 2,500 miles on them that seem to have more hole(s) than material left.
If you can, do a run with the Raven and get a nickname, if not please get his book:
https://www.amazon.com/Running-Raven-Amazing-Community-Inspi...
noir_lord|8 years ago
125,000 is about halfway.
icantdrive55|8 years ago
[deleted]
xaduha|8 years ago
Huh?
dingdongding|8 years ago
positivecomment|8 years ago
This is an actual argument from the article.
ZanyProgrammer|8 years ago
austinjp|8 years ago
And that's the absolute truth.
therealdrag0|8 years ago
krishicks|8 years ago
http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/
peterwwillis|8 years ago
goatlover|8 years ago
agumonkey|8 years ago
It makes your movement way more subtle, soft, supple and also redistributes effort on the whole limb chain.
mlinksva|8 years ago
vinay427|8 years ago
nathancahill|8 years ago
The social aspect is great. Quite often, they are in the center of parks and green space downtown. People hang out around them and work out together.
closeparen|8 years ago
The purpose of a mass transit system is to reduce contention for housing by letting a city's population diffuse over a larger land area. Parking should amplify this purpose by expanding the amount of land served by the system cost-effectively (relative to more densely packing stations in low-density areas).
With regard to gyms specifically, in much of the country, weather extremes are enough to deter all but the most hardcore badasses from outdoor exercise for much of the year. My alternative to running indoors when it's 110 or -20 is to not run.
wvh|8 years ago
I'm an avid runner. I agree when the barefoot movement talks about using your legs, knees and ankles as springs, and that too cushioned shoes let you beat the road without having to adapt, replacing some short-term discomfort by perhaps long term injury caused by bashing your stiff legs on the road for long distances.
But I also sit down most of the day on weekdays, and even though I stretch, that spring is mostly gone after a long workday. I run too heavily then, and I really prefer to have some protective footwear to compensate for my inflexibility on those days.
Another problem is that our prehistoric selves didn't run on hard asphalt for hours, which many of us have to do in our current environment.
So, even for those of us who are fit and athletic, this is more about getting the balance right considering our lifestyle and environment. We might have evolved to run, but not on asphalt and not after sitting down the whole day.
Don't clock up miles barefoot if/when your core physical strength or muscle flexibility don't allow feline agility. You're at least as likely to get injured. Adapt to the situation and listen to your body.
titzer|8 years ago
First, it filters incoming air of particulates like dust and pollen--gross stuff you don't want in your lungs. Over an hour of running, you can easily breathe 600L of air, in a city, that's a lot of pollution.
Second, it calms you. Breathing through the nose is a meditation exercise that automatically calms your mind.
Third, it reduces dehydration. Most of the water not lost through sweat and through the skin is lost through evaporation from the mouth. Through the nose instead, the same filtration system that keeps dust particles out serves as a condensation site for some of the moisture that would otherwise exit from your lungs.
Problem is, you can't run super fast breathing through your nose because of the limitation in breath volume from the restricted pathway. The article is right; IMO you should not run faster than what you can manage through nose breathing alone.
maxmcorp|8 years ago
Having reached 50+ my estimate is that only 1 in 20 of the people i have known and who has been running still do. Perhaps even less.
You simply get too many injuries. Your cortisol levels rise. You destroy your joints etc. etc.
I also find it very hard to imagine that running would have been better for some imaginable forefathers who had to run barefoot in nature with no roads.
mapleoin|8 years ago
There is a link to a study in the first paragraph of the article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_...
> The researchers identified a range of physical traits that suggest human ancestors evolved as distance runners. The adaptations helped them chase down prey and compete more effectively with the speedier carnivores on the open plains of Africa, the study says.
> The researchers say adaptations for running stretch back more than two million years, allowing humans to evolve from our apelike ancestors Australopithecus.
> "We think running is one of the most transforming events in human history," Bramble added. "We are arguing the emergence of humans is tied to the evolution of running."
wyclif|8 years ago
ck425|8 years ago
aaron-lebo|8 years ago
https://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greates...
soufron|8 years ago
rocqua|8 years ago
Now, a few years later I might've found a better solution. Take it slow and give your legs time to recover.
spodek|8 years ago
I have to imagine running like hell to escape predators as a major part of our evolutionary past. It would seem consistent with the effectiveness of high intensity interval training as well as how satisfying the feeling of exhaustion after running as fast as you can for a while.
Faint|8 years ago
agumonkey|8 years ago
That said, I never run faster than when fleeing someone, boy do I go fast.
Faint|8 years ago
[deleted]
lazyjones|8 years ago
Running as a sport is, in essence, forcing ourselves to do something we supposedly needed so much as a species that we evolved to be good at it. Our lifestyle has changed dramatically and we obviously don't need it much anymore.
Perhaps we should be running instead of walking whenever possible? I used to do that when I was younger and more impatient (I hated taxis, too), but having sweaty clothes isn't socially acceptable in most cases. Perhaps some research to alleviate this problem would help?
Edit: this looks like an interesting starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation...
magic_beans|8 years ago
Because it's FUN. It's ok to have fun, even if it's not productive.
acconrad|8 years ago
I stopped reading right here. Ask a podiatrist if they've seen a rise in plantar fasciitis as a result of barefoot running. Not everyone has the biomechanics to jump into barefoot running[1]. Not everyone who has the biomechanics can simply transition to barefoot running[2] - you have to ease into it[3].
As soon as you assign species-wide labels and claim something is wrong, assume it's a clickbaity title that will likely follow Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
[1] http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/barefoot-running-problems
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/20...
[3] http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/6FAQ.html#Who%20shoul...?
tshadley|8 years ago
"Most beginners give up when they get injured because they’ve done too much, too soon. Most of the benefits from running derive from going very slowly."
thoughtexprmnt|8 years ago
danieltillett|8 years ago
tkyjonathan|8 years ago
donquichotte|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
pgeorgep|8 years ago
geoffc|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
anonymousDan|8 years ago
undersuit|8 years ago
k__|8 years ago
mcguire|8 years ago
"You still run?"
"Only when chased."
jbrl|8 years ago
slipslap|8 years ago
drzaiusx11|8 years ago
I loved them, even if they did wear them out fairly quickly (I went through a pair in a little under a year.) That is largely because they were very comfortable and I ended up wearing them for more than just running though. They're the only minimalist shoe I've tried that had an adequately sized toe box.
I also recently got a pair of their canvas 'Mata' everyday shoes and can vouch for their comfort.
undersuit|8 years ago
ValentineC|8 years ago
nextos|8 years ago
given|8 years ago