Vibram Fivefingers SeeYa LS Review: Fit, Feel, and First Run Thoughts

Back in the summer of 2009, the Vibram Fivefingers KSO was my first ever barefoot-style running shoe. Vibrams played a big role in my transition to minimalism, but to be honest it’s been a long time since I’ve run regularly in VFFs. The main reason for me is that I’ve had a really hard time getting the fit right - using Vibram’s foot measurement technique it’s recommended that I wear a size 41, but recent pairs that I’ve worn have been a bit too snug. They haven’t been uncomfortably tight, but my toes reach almost to the end of the toe pockets, which makes it hard to wiggle my toes when wearing the shoes. Additionally, I tend to get an ache under the second metatarsal of my right foot when I run in VFF’s – this doesn’t happen in other non-cushioned shoes, and I have attributed it to some funky effect of the toe pockets restricting toe movement.

A few weeks ago I got an email from a marketing rep for Vibram asking if I’d be interested in trying out the new Vibram Fivefingers SeeYa LS. I was initially hesitant given my recent problems with the line, but had heard that the SeeYa was a big improvement over other recent models in terms of flexibility and comfort on the run. I agreed to try out a pair, along with a pair of the original SeeYa for comparative purposes (Disclosure: both pairs I received were media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer). I opted to size up to a 42 to see if that would help improve fit and comfort.

I’m going to try something a bit different here and do one post on the SeeYa LS  which I will update as needed. Having now run in 75+ shoes in the past few years, I find that my thoughts on and ability to write about a shoe are clearest after an initial try-on and run, so view this initial post as my gut reaction. Most of the time my thoughts change very little with additional use, but sometimes a break-in period will change my feelings a bit about a shoe. I will add additional information with added use if I feel it is helpful. This will also help me get out from under my stockpile of shoes waiting to be reviewed!

Fit and Feel

The shoes arrived last week and I’m happy to report that going up a size made a world of difference. I was able to wear them for several hours the day they arrived without the slightest feeling of discomfort. I still have trouble flexing the toes down in the shoes, but my toes had an easier time flexing inside the pockets with the roomier fit (I’m still not sold on the toe-pockets being a plus).

The main differentiator between the SeeYa and SeeYa LS is the upper. The upper of the LS is a very thin, breathable synthetic mesh, whereas that of the original SeeYa feels more like a stretchy fabric (I have not tried on the original SeeYa yet – will compare in more detail when I review it). The LS’s are probably the most breathable VFF’s that I have worn, which is a good thing – wonder if this will help with Vibram-stink?

The other big difference between the two with regard to the upper are the laces on the LS vs. the velcro closure on the original. It was a little tricky getting my foot in the lace-up version, but that probably comes as much from a lack of recent VFF-putting-on practice as it does from any problem with the shoe. Unlike the KomodoSport line, the footbed of the LS is non-removable and reminds me most of the footbed of the Bikila.

First Run Thoughts

I took the SeeYa LS out for a 5 mile run over the weekend on the roads around my house - averaged about a 7:30 min/mile pace, which is about my marathon race-pace. Overall I liked the shoes a lot, and think they’re a big improvement over the Bikila and Komodos for running – however, it may just be because sizing up has improved comfort dramatically. The SeeYa LS’s are light – listed at just over 5 oz in size 43 on the Vibram website – and the sole is very flexible.  The cushioning in these is very minimal, so I’d categorize it as a barefoot-style or ultraminimal shoe – as such, ground-feel is very good. I almost wish there was less rubber under the met heads though.

I had two issues with the SeeYa LS’s that may be unique to me but are worth mentioning. First, I experienced significant abrasion at the front of my arch on both feet. Had I run any further there likely would have been blood. I’m not exactly sure what caused this, but it’s in the area below the gray overlays just behind my first MTP joint (the ball behind my big toe). My guess is a pair of Injinji socks would resolve this, but I prefer to go sockless in Vibrams and wearing socks kind of defeats the purpose of the shoe.

The other big issue I had was the re-appearance of second met ache on my right foot. I had hoped that sizing up would allow more toe movement and thus alleviate this issue, but after a few miles the ache appeared once again. I have a hard time determining if it’s a bony ache or a soft tissue issue, but I lean toward the latter since it pops up only in VFF’s and the ache seems to radiate backward into the arch. Almost feels like something is pulling inside my arch.

Minus the abrasion and met ache, this is a really fun shoe to run in.

Summary

Of the Vibrams I have, the SeeYa LS is the lightest, most flexible, and most breathable, all of which are very good things. Comfort is excellent, though that may simply be because I sized up. I have concerns about the abrasion on the arch, which may ultimately preclude regular use for running, but I tend to have abrasion issues in a lot of shoes so this may not be a problem for everyone (leave a comment if you’ve experienced this!).

My biggest worry continues to be my aching right foot when I run in Vibrams – I’d like to know exactly what it is, why it happens only in these shoes, and to be sure I’m not doing any serious damage. I suspect it’s nothing serious since it comes on a few miles into the run and goes away as soon as a stop, but something is clearly up. I plan to use them on additional runs, and to do a more detailed comparison with the original SeeYa, so we’ll see if a bit more acclimation helps alleviate the ache. That’s it for now!

The Vibram Fivefingers SeeYa LS is available for purchase at Road Runner Sports – click to view men’s and women’s models.

Read More

Vibram Fivefingers SeeYa LS Review: Fit, Feel, and First Run Thoughts

Back in the summer of 2009, the Vibram Fivefingers KSO was my first ever barefoot-style running shoe. Vibrams played a big role in my transition to minimalism, but to be honest it’s been a long time since I’ve run regularly in VFFs. The main reason for me is that I’ve had a really hard time getting the fit right - using Vibram’s foot measurement technique it’s recommended that I wear a size 41, but recent pairs that I’ve worn have been a bit too snug. They haven’t been uncomfortably tight, but my toes reach almost to the end of the toe pockets, which makes it hard to wiggle my toes when wearing the shoes. Additionally, I tend to get an ache under the second metatarsal of my right foot when I run in VFF’s – this doesn’t happen in other non-cushioned shoes, and I have attributed it to some funky effect of the toe pockets restricting toe movement.

A few weeks ago I got an email from a marketing rep for Vibram asking if I’d be interested in trying out the new Vibram Fivefingers SeeYa LS. I was initially hesitant given my recent problems with the line, but had heard that the SeeYa was a big improvement over other recent models in terms of flexibility and comfort on the run. I agreed to try out a pair, along with a pair of the original SeeYa for comparative purposes (Disclosure: both pairs I received were media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer). I opted to size up to a 42 to see if that would help improve fit and comfort.

I’m going to try something a bit different here and do one post on the SeeYa LS  which I will update as needed. Having now run in 75+ shoes in the past few years, I find that my thoughts on and ability to write about a shoe are clearest after an initial try-on and run, so view this initial post as my gut reaction. Most of the time my thoughts change very little with additional use, but sometimes a break-in period will change my feelings a bit about a shoe. I will add additional information with added use if I feel it is helpful. This will also help me get out from under my stockpile of shoes waiting to be reviewed!

Fit and Feel

The shoes arrived last week and I’m happy to report that going up a size made a world of difference. I was able to wear them for several hours the day they arrived without the slightest feeling of discomfort. I still have trouble flexing the toes down in the shoes, but my toes had an easier time flexing inside the pockets with the roomier fit (I’m still not sold on the toe-pockets being a plus).

The main differentiator between the SeeYa and SeeYa LS is the upper. The upper of the LS is a very thin, breathable synthetic mesh, whereas that of the original SeeYa feels more like a stretchy fabric (I have not tried on the original SeeYa yet – will compare in more detail when I review it). The LS’s are probably the most breathable VFF’s that I have worn, which is a good thing – wonder if this will help with Vibram-stink?

The other big difference between the two with regard to the upper are the laces on the LS vs. the velcro closure on the original. It was a little tricky getting my foot in the lace-up version, but that probably comes as much from a lack of recent VFF-putting-on practice as it does from any problem with the shoe. Unlike the KomodoSport line, the footbed of the LS is non-removable and reminds me most of the footbed of the Bikila.

First Run Thoughts

I took the SeeYa LS out for a 5 mile run over the weekend on the roads around my house - averaged about a 7:30 min/mile pace, which is about my marathon race-pace. Overall I liked the shoes a lot, and think they’re a big improvement over the Bikila and Komodos for running – however, it may just be because sizing up has improved comfort dramatically. The SeeYa LS’s are light – listed at just over 5 oz in size 43 on the Vibram website – and the sole is very flexible.  The cushioning in these is very minimal, so I’d categorize it as a barefoot-style or ultraminimal shoe – as such, ground-feel is very good. I almost wish there was less rubber under the met heads though.

I had two issues with the SeeYa LS’s that may be unique to me but are worth mentioning. First, I experienced significant abrasion at the front of my arch on both feet. Had I run any further there likely would have been blood. I’m not exactly sure what caused this, but it’s in the area below the gray overlays just behind my first MTP joint (the ball behind my big toe). My guess is a pair of Injinji socks would resolve this, but I prefer to go sockless in Vibrams and wearing socks kind of defeats the purpose of the shoe.

The other big issue I had was the re-appearance of second met ache on my right foot. I had hoped that sizing up would allow more toe movement and thus alleviate this issue, but after a few miles the ache appeared once again. I have a hard time determining if it’s a bony ache or a soft tissue issue, but I lean toward the latter since it pops up only in VFF’s and the ache seems to radiate backward into the arch. Almost feels like something is pulling inside my arch.

Minus the abrasion and met ache, this is a really fun shoe to run in.

Summary

Of the Vibrams I have, the SeeYa LS is the lightest, most flexible, and most breathable, all of which are very good things. Comfort is excellent, though that may simply be because I sized up. I have concerns about the abrasion on the arch, which may ultimately preclude regular use for running, but I tend to have abrasion issues in a lot of shoes so this may not be a problem for everyone (leave a comment if you’ve experienced this!).

My biggest worry continues to be my aching right foot when I run in Vibrams – I’d like to know exactly what it is, why it happens only in these shoes, and to be sure I’m not doing any serious damage. I suspect it’s nothing serious since it comes on a few miles into the run and goes away as soon as a stop, but something is clearly up. I plan to use them on additional runs, and to do a more detailed comparison with the original SeeYa, so we’ll see if a bit more acclimation helps alleviate the ache. That’s it for now!

The Vibram Fivefingers SeeYa LS is available for purchase at Road Runner Sports – click to view men’s and women’s models.

Read More

Mizuno Be: Show Us the Data

I came across the video below via a Twitter post by Ian Griffiths:

Now Mizuno are at it: bit.ly/UCSmuqSome bold claims here about performance improvement and muscle activation... Evidence please...?

— Ian Griffiths (@Sports_Pod) October 10, 2012

In the video, Mizuno claims that the new Mizuno Be shoe is designed to "increase activation" of the flexor digitorum longus and flexor hallucis longus while walking, thus incresing the stregth of these muscles. I'm all for innovation in shoe design and attempts to do unique things with footwear that might benefit people by strengthening muscles, but when it's claimed that a shoe strengthens specific muscles when not running to improve performance while running, my respone would be show me the peer-reviewed, published data supporting this claim. Have we not learned from claims made by other shoe companies that such claims need to be backed up by independent testing? Perhaps the studies are done and not published yet, but until they are, I'll take theses claims with a huge grain of salt. Well-said Ian!

Read More

Mizuno Be: Show Us the Data

I came across the video below via a Twitter post by Ian Griffiths:

Now Mizuno are at it: bit.ly/UCSmuqSome bold claims here about performance improvement and muscle activation... Evidence please...?

— Ian Griffiths (@Sports_Pod) October 10, 2012

In the video, Mizuno claims that the new Mizuno Be shoe is designed to "increase activation" of the flexor digitorum longus and flexor hallucis longus while walking, thus incresing the stregth of these muscles. I'm all for innovation in shoe design and attempts to do unique things with footwear that might benefit people by strengthening muscles, but when it's claimed that a shoe strengthens specific muscles when not running to improve performance while running, my respone would be show me the peer-reviewed, published data supporting this claim. Have we not learned from claims made by other shoe companies that such claims need to be backed up by independent testing? Perhaps the studies are done and not published yet, but until they are, I'll take theses claims with a huge grain of salt. Well-said Ian!

Read More

Jay Dicharry on Choosing a Running Shoe

Great post by my buddy Jay Dicharry on choosing soft vs. firm running shoes:

“…the marketing research is clear. People buy shoes b/c of 1) color, and 2) “first feel”. First feel is that first step you take. You know that sense of walking on a cloud…..the same feeling that made you think you could stand around in them for hours? Well, that doesn’t have anything to do with running shoe selection. Running is not standing.”

Read the full post here: http://anathletesbody.com/2012/10/29/chevy-tahoe-or-a-mini-cooper-a-tip-on-running-shoe-selection/

Read More

Jay Dicharry on Choosing a Running Shoe

Great post by my buddy Jay Dicharry on choosing soft vs. firm running shoes:

“…the marketing research is clear. People buy shoes b/c of 1) color, and 2) “first feel”. First feel is that first step you take. You know that sense of walking on a cloud…..the same feeling that made you think you could stand around in them for hours? Well, that doesn’t have anything to do with running shoe selection. Running is not standing.”

Read the full post here: http://anathletesbody.com/2012/10/29/chevy-tahoe-or-a-mini-cooper-a-tip-on-running-shoe-selection/

Read More

Posterior Views of My Running Form in Vibram SeeYa LS, Merrell Flux Glove, Altra Instinct 1.5, and Saucony Ride 5

After posting videos of my running form in several shoes on Thursday, I was curious to see what things looked like in a few other options, particularly some zero drop shoes and a shoe with a higher drop.

Yesterday I took my camera out to the street in front of my house and shot posterior-view video of me running in the Vibram SeeYa LS, Merrell Flux Glove Sport, Altra Instinct 1.5, and Saucony Ride 5. My sense is that I was midfoot-forefoot in the first three, mild heel in the Ride 5, which matches how I feel when I run in the shoes on the road. It was an overcast day and the zoom isn't quite as good as in my previous videos, but you can still see things pretty well.

As always, feel free to leave a comment!

---

Below is a compilation video of me running in 7 different footwear conditions:

To view more slow-motion runng videos, visit the Runblogger YouTube Channel.

Read More

Posterior Views of My Running Form in Vibram SeeYa LS, Merrell Flux Glove, Altra Instinct 1.5, and Saucony Ride 5

After posting videos of my running form in several shoes on Thursday, I was curious to see what things looked like in a few other options, particularly some zero drop shoes and a shoe with a higher drop.

Yesterday I took my camera out to the street in front of my house and shot posterior-view video of me running in the Vibram SeeYa LS, Merrell Flux Glove Sport, Altra Instinct 1.5, and Saucony Ride 5. My sense is that I was midfoot-forefoot in the first three, mild heel in the Ride 5, which matches how I feel when I run in the shoes on the road. It was an overcast day and the zoom isn't quite as good as in my previous videos, but you can still see things pretty well.

As always, feel free to leave a comment!

---

Below is a compilation video of me running in 7 different footwear conditions:

To view more slow-motion runng videos, visit the Runblogger YouTube Channel.

Read More

Critique Me!: Posterior Views of My Form When Running Barefoot, in Newton Distance Racers, and in the Skechers GoRun

I spent some time this afternoon with a group of my research students who are designing a senior project that they’ll hopefully conduct on running form. The goal for today was to familiarize them with the cameras that I have, and get some video from different angles so they have an idea of what they can potentially work with. For me it was a chance to play with my new HD slow motion camera (Panasonic FZ200) – I got some great footage shot in HD 720p at 120 frames-per-second – I’m loving this camera for outdoor footage, but have not tried it inside yet.

I thought I’d share a few clips of me running (slowly) from behind in three different conditions: barefoot, in Newton Distance Racers, and in Skechers GoRun shoes. We shot the video from waist down since we were mainly just playing around and they will probably be focusing on the feet in whatever project they choose to pursue. There was no warm-up, I ran from about 20 feet behind and to the side of the camera to maybe 100 feet beyond the camera, so I had to cut inward a bit to get in line with the camera view. Every time I do this I realize how horrifically difficult it is to run fluidly and relaxed when you know you are being filmed!

I’ll refrain from commenting on myself beyond saying that I see forefoot strikes when barefoot and mild heel to midfoot in shoes, but if you’d like to tear apart other aspects of my form, feel free to do so in the comments!

Read More

Critique Me!: Posterior Views of My Form When Running Barefoot, in Newton Distance Racers, and in the Skechers GoRun

I spent some time this afternoon with a group of my research students who are designing a senior project that they’ll hopefully conduct on running form. The goal for today was to familiarize them with the cameras that I have, and get some video from different angles so they have an idea of what they can potentially work with. For me it was a chance to play with my new HD slow motion camera (Panasonic FZ200) – I got some great footage shot in HD 720p at 120 frames-per-second – I’m loving this camera for outdoor footage, but have not tried it inside yet.

I thought I’d share a few clips of me running (slowly) from behind in three different conditions: barefoot, in Newton Distance Racers, and in Skechers GoRun shoes. We shot the video from waist down since we were mainly just playing around and they will probably be focusing on the feet in whatever project they choose to pursue. There was no warm-up, I ran from about 20 feet behind and to the side of the camera to maybe 100 feet beyond the camera, so I had to cut inward a bit to get in line with the camera view. Every time I do this I realize how horrifically difficult it is to run fluidly and relaxed when you know you are being filmed!

I’ll refrain from commenting on myself beyond saying that I see forefoot strikes when barefoot and mild heel to midfoot in shoes, but if you’d like to tear apart other aspects of my form, feel free to do so in the comments!

Read More

Inov-8 Bare-X 180 Review: A Top Choice Among Ultraminimal, Barefoot-Style Shoes

I have to admit that I’ve been very impressed by Inov-8 lately. So far I have only reviewed one of their shoes (Road-X 233), but I now own 4 additional pairs of Inov-8’s - the F-Lite 195, Bare-X Lite 150, Trailroc 135, and the Bare-X 180 (most purchased at steep discount via The Clymb). Of the shoes mentioned, I have spent the most time in the Bare-X 180, and it’s quite frankly a phenomenal shoe for anyone looking for a non-Fivefingers, minimally cushioned shoe.

Lately I haven’t been running all that often in minimally cushioned footwear (I tend to prefer a small amount of cushion underfoot), but I still find value in doing some amount of barefoot or minimally cushioned running on a reasonably regular basis. I view these runs as form workouts, and I feel like they help to reset my system and force me to concentrate a bit more on my movement. The Bare-X 180 is a near ideal shoe for this purpose.

In contrast to my running preferences, for most of my non-running time I prefer shoes that are flat and that have as little cushion as possible. I have been zero-drop nearly full time outside of running for quite a long time now, and the Bare-X 180 is one of my top choices for casual wear – I’ve even worn it to work on a few occasions (like today – being a professor has its perks, and one is a tolerance for casual attire).

What I love about the Bare-X 180, and about most Inov-8 shoes for that matter, is that it’s a no frills shoe that serves its intended purpose very well. Inov-8 has done a fantastic job avoiding the whole “pronation control” model of footwear production, and instead makes a variety of shoes that vary in weight, last shape, cushioning, heel-toe drop, etc. There are combos suited to nearly every preference along the minimal spectrum, and the Bare-X 180 fills the ultraminimal, barefoot-style niche.

Weighing in at just over 7oz, the 180’s are lightweight, zero drop, and have zero cushion beyond the approximately 4mm thick insole. If you take the insole out, the only thing between your foot and the ground is a 4mm thick piece of firm rubber. Without the insole, ground feel is thus about as good as you will get with any shoe currently on the market. This is good if you like minimal material between you foot and the ground, but not so good if you plan to run anywhere near rocks or gravel – you will feel every stone!

The upper of the 180 is a fabric mesh that seems plenty durable, and the fit is fantastic. Sockless wear is no problem. The 180 is on Inov-8’s anatomical last, so it fits snug through the heel and midfoot, and has a very roomy forefoot. There is no arch support to speak of beyond the curling of the insole up the medial side of the midfoot – remove it and the shoe is flat internally. Flexibility is outstanding – this is a shoe that can be rolled up into a ball.

There’s really not much else to say about this shoe – it’s designed to be simple and minimal, and it achieves these goals perfectly. If I have one complaint, it’s that the rubber outsole gets a bit slick as it ages, so traction is not great, but then it’s not designed to be a trail shoe (and Inov-8 makes some awesome trail shoes – I’m absolutely loving the Trailroc 235). If you’re looking for an ultraminimal shoe, you can’t go wrong with this one, I’d put it right at the top of my list in the category, rivaled only perhaps by the Merrell Barefoot Flux Glove. Huge thumbs up for the Inov-8 Bare-X 180!

The Inov-8 Bare-X 180 is available for purchase in the gray/red colorway at Running Warehouse, and in a white/blue colorway at Zappos.

Read More

Inov-8 Bare-X 180 Review: A Top Choice Among Ultraminimal, Barefoot-Style Shoes

I have to admit that I’ve been very impressed by Inov-8 lately. So far I have only reviewed one of their shoes (Road-X 233), but I now own 4 additional pairs of Inov-8’s - the F-Lite 195, Bare-X Lite 150, Trailroc 135, and the Bare-X 180 (most purchased at steep discount via The Clymb). Of the shoes mentioned, I have spent the most time in the Bare-X 180, and it’s quite frankly a phenomenal shoe for anyone looking for a non-Fivefingers, minimally cushioned shoe.

Lately I haven’t been running all that often in minimally cushioned footwear (I tend to prefer a small amount of cushion underfoot), but I still find value in doing some amount of barefoot or minimally cushioned running on a reasonably regular basis. I view these runs as form workouts, and I feel like they help to reset my system and force me to concentrate a bit more on my movement. The Bare-X 180 is a near ideal shoe for this purpose.

In contrast to my running preferences, for most of my non-running time I prefer shoes that are flat and that have as little cushion as possible. I have been zero-drop nearly full time outside of running for quite a long time now, and the Bare-X 180 is one of my top choices for casual wear – I’ve even worn it to work on a few occasions (like today – being a professor has its perks, and one is a tolerance for casual attire).

What I love about the Bare-X 180, and about most Inov-8 shoes for that matter, is that it’s a no frills shoe that serves its intended purpose very well. Inov-8 has done a fantastic job avoiding the whole “pronation control” model of footwear production, and instead makes a variety of shoes that vary in weight, last shape, cushioning, heel-toe drop, etc. There are combos suited to nearly every preference along the minimal spectrum, and the Bare-X 180 fills the ultraminimal, barefoot-style niche.

Weighing in at just over 7oz, the 180’s are lightweight, zero drop, and have zero cushion beyond the approximately 4mm thick insole. If you take the insole out, the only thing between your foot and the ground is a 4mm thick piece of firm rubber. Without the insole, ground feel is thus about as good as you will get with any shoe currently on the market. This is good if you like minimal material between you foot and the ground, but not so good if you plan to run anywhere near rocks or gravel – you will feel every stone!

The upper of the 180 is a fabric mesh that seems plenty durable, and the fit is fantastic. Sockless wear is no problem. The 180 is on Inov-8’s anatomical last, so it fits snug through the heel and midfoot, and has a very roomy forefoot. There is no arch support to speak of beyond the curling of the insole up the medial side of the midfoot – remove it and the shoe is flat internally. Flexibility is outstanding – this is a shoe that can be rolled up into a ball.

There’s really not much else to say about this shoe – it’s designed to be simple and minimal, and it achieves these goals perfectly. If I have one complaint, it’s that the rubber outsole gets a bit slick as it ages, so traction is not great, but then it’s not designed to be a trail shoe (and Inov-8 makes some awesome trail shoes – I’m absolutely loving the Trailroc 235). If you’re looking for an ultraminimal shoe, you can’t go wrong with this one, I’d put it right at the top of my list in the category, rivaled only perhaps by the Merrell Barefoot Flux Glove. Huge thumbs up for the Inov-8 Bare-X 180!

The Inov-8 Bare-X 180 is available for purchase in the gray/red colorway at Running Warehouse, and in a white/blue colorway at Zappos.

Read More

Shoes Matter: Running Shoes Can Contribute to Injury

Damn you injuries! (Photo credit: aaipodpics)

I’ve been part of an interesting email thread over the past few days. I’m not going to discuss any specifics, but the gist of the discussion has revolved around the question of whether shoes can cause running injuries.

The refrain lately in the running community has been that “form trumps footwear” when it comes to running injuries. That is, if you run with “good” form, you can manage to run in just about any pair of shoes. This sounds good and makes intuitive sense, but I think it’s a vast simplification of reality. The other common refrain is “running injures runners,” not their shoes. There is truth in this statement as well, but once again it’s an oversimplification.

So what is it that injures runners. My position is that it is the forces experienced during ground contact that cause running injuries. These forces include passive impact forces that occur at the moment of foot contact, and perhaps even more importantly, the active forces that the body experiences during the remainder of stance phase. If you don’t run, you don’t experience these forces, and thus you won’t suffer a typical running injury. I’m not going to argue at all with that – so yes, running does cause running injuries, but for a runner, not running is rarely a desirable option.

Among people who do run, are there factors that increase injury risk? Absolutely! Studies have looked at this question ad nauseum, and findings are mixed, but the 4 factors which repeatedly pop out as increasing risk include:

1. High mileage

2. Running to compete (i.e., racing and presumably speed training)

3. Limited running experience (i.e., new runners)

4. History of previous injury

These are factors that have been found in epidemiological studies comparing large groups of people. What do all four of these things have in common? Yes, they all involve running, but presumably the people who did not get injured in these studies were also runners. Why is it that these four factors in particular increase injury risk among runners? The answer is quite simple – they all either increase the amount of force applied to the body, or involve a poorer ability to manage the forces that are applied. Higher mileage and greater speed = more force and more wear and tear. New runners = tissues are less adapted to the force that is applied. History of injury = tissues are weakened and less capable of handling force application.

So how does this apply to shoes? When we run a lot of force is applied to the body. With every step we impact the ground with a force equivalent
to approximately 2 to 3 times body weight. To manage the applied forces during stance, our joints compress, our muscles stretch and contract, and our tendons and ligaments tug and rub on surrounding tissues. The average runner takes about 80 to 95 running steps per minute with each foot. Extrapolate that over a thirty-minute run and you are dealing with 2400 to 2850 contacts per foot, per half-hour. That’s a lot of stress to the body!

Now, some runners have no problem handling this amount of force application. They have good structure, good mechanics, good strength, stability and balance. They can run mile after mile without getting seriously hurt because their body works optimally to handle the forces applied. Other people have poor strength, stability, balance, etc. They might have imbalances in structure or muscle strength for example. They might have poor running mechanics. They might have an anatomical abnormality that makes it harder to manage particular types of force applied in particular ways. But here’s the key point – all of these things are force modifiers. They alter how much force is applied at what time during stance, and they influence where specifically forces are applied at the level of tissues. For example, someone with a weak gluteus medius on one side may have a hip instability that causes them to manage forces at the knee in a non-optimal way. This can lead to injury such as ITBS or patellofemoral pain syndrome.

I would group shoes in with all of these other factors as a force modifier because they do alter how forces are applied to the body. They can alter stability, joint torques and the timing and magnitude of force application. They can alter where specifically forces are applied – a good example of this is the increased burden placed on the calf muscles in low-drop shoes. Match the wrong pair of shoes with a runner who is otherwise healthy and the shoes themselves can alter force application in such a way as to precipitate an injury. This can go the other way too – move to less shoe or barefoot, and force application is modified in ways that can be either positive or negative. Which result occurs is highly individual and is dependent on all of the things discussed above (an individual’s inherent strength, stability, structure, etc. – I’d also include past history of shoe wear here). Sometimes runners can adapt to forces over a period of time and new shoe works out fine, sometimes they can’t and the only solution is to ditch the footwear and try something else.

Having myself run in probably more than 75 pairs of shoes over the past 5 years, I can confidently say that there are certain shoes that have caused me pain. My most recent example is the New Balance MT110 – the slanted sole causes my feet to evert excessively just standing in them, and I developed a very tender posterior tibial tendon after a long trail run in the shoes. Never had the pain in any other shoe. Might I have adapted with continued use? Perhaps, but why would I want to adapt to a shoe that causes me pain when there are equivalently built and priced options that don’t cause me trouble? Another example are the Vibram Fivefingers – I often get an ache under my second metatarsal after running long in them, never feel this in other shoes. I suspect it has to do with fit and a resulting reduction in ability of my toes to flex and share the load during take-off (not to mention that the lack of cushion probably increases focal load on the second met head). A third example – before I cut the forefoot band, the New Balance MT10 caused me wicked ITB pain on one side. Never happened in any other shoe, and pain went away after I cut the band. I could go on…

So my point here is that although form seems to be king these days, let’s not forget about footwear (and I haven’t even touched here on the fact that footwear can influence form). Let’s not give shoe makers a free pass to claim user error when a shoe causes a problem. Sometimes the shoe is at fault when a running injury pops up. It may not be all the time, it may not even be often, but to ignore our footwear when it comes to managing pain is misguided. Shoes matter!

Read More

Shoes Matter: Running Shoes Can Contribute to Injury

Damn you injuries! (Photo credit: aaipodpics)

I’ve been part of an interesting email thread over the past few days. I’m not going to discuss any specifics, but the gist of the discussion has revolved around the question of whether shoes can cause running injuries.

The refrain lately in the running community has been that “form trumps footwear” when it comes to running injuries. That is, if you run with “good” form, you can manage to run in just about any pair of shoes. This sounds good and makes intuitive sense, but I think it’s a vast simplification of reality. The other common refrain is “running injures runners,” not their shoes. There is truth in this statement as well, but once again it’s an oversimplification.

So what is it that injures runners. My position is that it is the forces experienced during ground contact that cause running injuries. These forces include passive impact forces that occur at the moment of foot contact, and perhaps even more importantly, the active forces that the body experiences during the remainder of stance phase. If you don’t run, you don’t experience these forces, and thus you won’t suffer a typical running injury. I’m not going to argue at all with that – so yes, running does cause running injuries, but for a runner, not running is rarely a desirable option.

Among people who do run, are there factors that increase injury risk? Absolutely! Studies have looked at this question ad nauseum, and findings are mixed, but the 4 factors which repeatedly pop out as increasing risk include:

1. High mileage

2. Running to compete (i.e., racing and presumably speed training)

3. Limited running experience (i.e., new runners)

4. History of previous injury

These are factors that have been found in epidemiological studies comparing large groups of people. What do all four of these things have in common? Yes, they all involve running, but presumably the people who did not get injured in these studies were also runners. Why is it that these four factors in particular increase injury risk among runners? The answer is quite simple – they all either increase the amount of force applied to the body, or involve a poorer ability to manage the forces that are applied. Higher mileage and greater speed = more force and more wear and tear. New runners = tissues are less adapted to the force that is applied. History of injury = tissues are weakened and less capable of handling force application.

So how does this apply to shoes? When we run a lot of force is applied to the body. With every step we impact the ground with a force equivalent
to approximately 2 to 3 times body weight. To manage the applied forces during stance, our joints compress, our muscles stretch and contract, and our tendons and ligaments tug and rub on surrounding tissues. The average runner takes about 80 to 95 running steps per minute with each foot. Extrapolate that over a thirty-minute run and you are dealing with 2400 to 2850 contacts per foot, per half-hour. That’s a lot of stress to the body!

Now, some runners have no problem handling this amount of force application. They have good structure, good mechanics, good strength, stability and balance. They can run mile after mile without getting seriously hurt because their body works optimally to handle the forces applied. Other people have poor strength, stability, balance, etc. They might have imbalances in structure or muscle strength for example. They might have poor running mechanics. They might have an anatomical abnormality that makes it harder to manage particular types of force applied in particular ways. But here’s the key point – all of these things are force modifiers. They alter how much force is applied at what time during stance, and they influence where specifically forces are applied at the level of tissues. For example, someone with a weak gluteus medius on one side may have a hip instability that causes them to manage forces at the knee in a non-optimal way. This can lead to injury such as ITBS or patellofemoral pain syndrome.

I would group shoes in with all of these other factors as a force modifier because they do alter how forces are applied to the body. They can alter stability, joint torques and the timing and magnitude of force application. They can alter where specifically forces are applied – a good example of this is the increased burden placed on the calf muscles in low-drop shoes. Match the wrong pair of shoes with a runner who is otherwise healthy and the shoes themselves can alter force application in such a way as to precipitate an injury. This can go the other way too – move to less shoe or barefoot, and force application is modified in ways that can be either positive or negative. Which result occurs is highly individual and is dependent on all of the things discussed above (an individual’s inherent strength, stability, structure, etc. – I’d also include past history of shoe wear here). Sometimes runners can adapt to forces over a period of time and new shoe works out fine, sometimes they can’t and the only solution is to ditch the footwear and try something else.

Having myself run in probably more than 75 pairs of shoes over the past 5 years, I can confidently say that there are certain shoes that have caused me pain. My most recent example is the New Balance MT110 – the slanted sole causes my feet to evert excessively just standing in them, and I developed a very tender posterior tibial tendon after a long trail run in the shoes. Never had the pain in any other shoe. Might I have adapted with continued use? Perhaps, but why would I want to adapt to a shoe that causes me pain when there are equivalently built and priced options that don’t cause me trouble? Another example are the Vibram Fivefingers – I often get an ache under my second metatarsal after running long in them, never feel this in other shoes. I suspect it has to do with fit and a resulting reduction in ability of my toes to flex and share the load during take-off (not to mention that the lack of cushion probably increases focal load on the second met head). A third example – before I cut the forefoot band, the New Balance MT10 caused me wicked ITB pain on one side. Never happened in any other shoe, and pain went away after I cut the band. I could go on…

So my point here is that although form seems to be king these days, let’s not forget about footwear (and I haven’t even touched here on the fact that footwear can influence form). Let’s not give shoe makers a free pass to claim user error when a shoe causes a problem. Sometimes the shoe is at fault when a running injury pops up. It may not be all the time, it may not even be often, but to ignore our footwear when it comes to managing pain is misguided. Shoes matter!

Read More

Barefoot Shoes: More Than Just an Oxymoron

Awhile ago I read a great post by Jason Robillard on the relative merits of using the phrase “barefoot shoes” to describe minimalist footwear. Here’s how he opened it up:

“I’ve been trying to fight this trend for years now, but the masses have spoken.  In a battle that would rival BetaMax v. VHS, the term “barefoot shoes” has won out over “minimalist shoes.”  I concede.

Yeah, I know “barefoot shoes” is an oxymoron.  Yes, I know not all “barefoot shoes” give an experience that is remotely like being barefoot.  Yes, I know many of my purist friends will scoff my tossing of the towel.

The only people that use the term “minimalist shoes” are my ten barefoot friends.  The rest of the world calls them “barefoot shoes.”

I’ve long resisted the temptation to ever refer to a stripped-down minimalist shoe like a Vibram or a Merrell Trail Glove as a “barefoot shoe.” I’ve caved to the point of calling them barefoot-style shoes, but never straight-up barefoot (at least I hope I haven’t).

Quite frankly, I don’t even like to use the word “minimalist” to describe a specific category of footwear since there is so much variation within it. As I’ve written before, I view minimalist more as a relative term to describe shoes along a spectrum from the Brooks Beast to the bare foot (i.e., one shoe can be more or less minimal than another).

The reality is that Jason is right. The average person is far more likely to know what a “barefoot shoe” is than a “minimalist shoe.” Only serious runners and shoe geeks (and their poor spouses, children, friends, neighbors, etc.) are familiar with the minimalist terminology. Ask a random non-runner what a barefoot shoe is and the likely response will be “aren’t they those ugly things with the toes?” Ask the same person what a minimalist shoe is and you might get a blank stare.

If you don’t believe me, let me provide some evidence. I popped over to the Google Adwords Keyword tool last night for a bit of research. If you’re not familiar with the tool (and if you are a blogger, you should be!), it allows you to see how often particular term combinations are searched for via Google in a given month. Thus, it helps to determine what people call things when they are looking for information on-line. I plugged in the following three phrases: “running shoes,” “barefoot shoes,” and “minimalist shoes.” Here are the number of global monthly searches for each:

running shoes: 1,830,000

barefoot shoes: 135,000

minimalist shoes: 49,500

Barefoot shoe searches nearly triple minimalist shoe searches. What’s more, the phrase “barefoot running” beats out “minimalist running” 110,000 to 33,100.

What’s the big deal? The problem as I see it is that barefoot running and minimalist running are two truly different things. Not only is “barefoot shoe” and oxymoron, putting on a “barefoot shoe” creates an expectation that one will run as if they were barefoot. Sometimes this will be the case, but quite often it’s not, and this can create problems and increase injury risk.

For example, I was at the track last week and a guy and his wife/girlfriend showed up in his and hers Fivefingers (it was very sweet!). They had a metronome and were obviously working on “barefoot” form. However, he was heel-striking away as if he was wearing a traditional shoe. (Ironically, I was there attempting to get a high-school runner with injury problems who barely pronates when barefoot out of a pair of motion control shoes that had been “prescribed” to her by a local shoe store.) I have plenty of video of people continuing to run with a heel-striking gait in “barefoot shoes,” even on asphalt. Their form may change in other ways, but heel striking when barefoot causes a dramatic increase in the impact loading rate applied to the body, and a person heel striking in a minimally cushioned shoe like a Vibram is probably experiencing much more impact than someone in a regular running shoe – I suppose this defeats the purpose of making the switch.

I will concede that “barefoot shoes” as a category description is not going away. Although Vibram sales are declining, they will likely always fill a niche, just as other ulraminimal shoes do. But, I do think it is important to maintain a distinction: barefoot is barefoot, shoes are shoes, and the moment you put one on the other things change. Though I agree with the sentiment of Jason’s post, I just can’t bring myself to refer to a shoe as a barefoot shoe. I’ll continue to say “barefoot-style,” or perhaps “ultraminimal,” but that’s as far as I can go.

And now that I’ve addressed this most pressing of controversies, time to go for a run in my sort-of-barefoot-end-of-the-minimal-spectrum-trail-shoes :)

Read More

Barefoot Shoes: More Than Just an Oxymoron

Awhile ago I read a great post by Jason Robillard on the relative merits of using the phrase “barefoot shoes” to describe minimalist footwear. Here’s how he opened it up:

“I’ve been trying to fight this trend for years now, but the masses have spoken.  In a battle that would rival BetaMax v. VHS, the term “barefoot shoes” has won out over “minimalist shoes.”  I concede.

Yeah, I know “barefoot shoes” is an oxymoron.  Yes, I know not all “barefoot shoes” give an experience that is remotely like being barefoot.  Yes, I know many of my purist friends will scoff my tossing of the towel.

The only people that use the term “minimalist shoes” are my ten barefoot friends.  The rest of the world calls them “barefoot shoes.”

I’ve long resisted the temptation to ever refer to a stripped-down minimalist shoe like a Vibram or a Merrell Trail Glove as a “barefoot shoe.” I’ve caved to the point of calling them barefoot-style shoes, but never straight-up barefoot (at least I hope I haven’t).

Quite frankly, I don’t even like to use the word “minimalist” to describe a specific category of footwear since there is so much variation within it. As I’ve written before, I view minimalist more as a relative term to describe shoes along a spectrum from the Brooks Beast to the bare foot (i.e., one shoe can be more or less minimal than another).

The reality is that Jason is right. The average person is far more likely to know what a “barefoot shoe” is than a “minimalist shoe.” Only serious runners and shoe geeks (and their poor spouses, children, friends, neighbors, etc.) are familiar with the minimalist terminology. Ask a random non-runner what a barefoot shoe is and the likely response will be “aren’t they those ugly things with the toes?” Ask the same person what a minimalist shoe is and you might get a blank stare.

If you don’t believe me, let me provide some evidence. I popped over to the Google Adwords Keyword tool last night for a bit of research. If you’re not familiar with the tool (and if you are a blogger, you should be!), it allows you to see how often particular term combinations are searched for via Google in a given month. Thus, it helps to determine what people call things when they are looking for information on-line. I plugged in the following three phrases: “running shoes,” “barefoot shoes,” and “minimalist shoes.” Here are the number of global monthly searches for each:

running shoes: 1,830,000

barefoot shoes: 135,000

minimalist shoes: 49,500

Barefoot shoe searches nearly triple minimalist shoe searches. What’s more, the phrase “barefoot running” beats out “minimalist running” 110,000 to 33,100.

What’s the big deal? The problem as I see it is that barefoot running and minimalist running are two truly different things. Not only is “barefoot shoe” and oxymoron, putting on a “barefoot shoe” creates an expectation that one will run as if they were barefoot. Sometimes this will be the case, but quite often it’s not, and this can create problems and increase injury risk.

For example, I was at the track last week and a guy and his wife/girlfriend showed up in his and hers Fivefingers (it was very sweet!). They had a metronome and were obviously working on “barefoot” form. However, he was heel-striking away as if he was wearing a traditional shoe. (Ironically, I was there attempting to get a high-school runner with injury problems who barely pronates when barefoot out of a pair of motion control shoes that had been “prescribed” to her by a local shoe store.) I have plenty of video of people continuing to run with a heel-striking gait in “barefoot shoes,” even on asphalt. Their form may change in other ways, but heel striking when barefoot causes a dramatic increase in the impact loading rate applied to the body, and a person heel striking in a minimally cushioned shoe like a Vibram is probably experiencing much more impact than someone in a regular running shoe – I suppose this defeats the purpose of making the switch.

I will concede that “barefoot shoes” as a category description is not going away. Although Vibram sales are declining, they will likely always fill a niche, just as other ulraminimal shoes do. But, I do think it is important to maintain a distinction: barefoot is barefoot, shoes are shoes, and the moment you put one on the other things change. Though I agree with the sentiment of Jason’s post, I just can’t bring myself to refer to a shoe as a barefoot shoe. I’ll continue to say “barefoot-style,” or perhaps “ultraminimal,” but that’s as far as I can go.

And now that I’ve addressed this most pressing of controversies, time to go for a run in my sort-of-barefoot-end-of-the-minimal-spectrum-trail-shoes :)

Read More

The Influence of Minimalism on Trail Running Shoes: Interesting Article in Footwear Insight Magazine

Quick post to direct you to an interesting article in the Sept/Oct 2012 issue of Footwear Insight.The article interviews reps from a variety of shoe companies on recent trends in trail running footwear. Among the topics covered are the rise of bright colors, the influence of minimalism on trail shoe design, and whether there market is over-saturated by brands and shoes right now.

Check out the article here: http://digital.turn-page.com/i/83857/23

Read More

The Influence of Minimalism on Trail Running Shoes: Interesting Article in Footwear Insight Magazine

Quick post to direct you to an interesting article in the Sept/Oct 2012 issue of Footwear Insight.The article interviews reps from a variety of shoe companies on recent trends in trail running footwear. Among the topics covered are the rise of bright colors, the influence of minimalism on trail shoe design, and whether there market is over-saturated by brands and shoes right now.

Check out the article here: http://digital.turn-page.com/i/83857/23

Read More

Underfoot Pressure Tracings of Forefoot, Midfoot, and Heel Strikes in Barefoot Runners: We All Supinate!

There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding how the foot initially contacts the ground during running. For example, some people like to refer to themselves as “supinators,” as if it’s a diagnosis of something unique and bad. Some think that a midfoot landing involves the entire bottom of the foot contacting the ground at the same time.The reality is that we almost always make initial contact somewhere on the outside margin of the foot with the foot in a supinated position. I don’t think I have ever seen a runner not do this in all of the videos I have, and thus a midfoot strike does not equal a flat foot strike, and we are all in fact “supinators.”

After initial contact along the outside margin, the foot everts and rolls inward (what we commonly refer to as pronation). The amount of intial supination, the speed with which the foot pronates, and the amount that it pronates are largely what differ between runners.

To illustrate the initial contact point, I want to direct you to three great videos from Daniel Lieberman’s lab at Harvard. These videos are part of the supplementary information from his 2010 study in Nature and provide underfoot pressure tracings from barefoot runners exhibiting forefoot, midfoot, and rearfoot strikes. Watch how pressure migrates from outside to inside in all three – in no case is there any pressure under the ball behind the big toe at initial contact. I’ve had some trouble getting the videos to play in my browser, so if that doesn’t work you can right-click and save them to watch them on your computer.

Video 1: Pressure Tracing – Forefoot Strike

Video 2: Pressure Tracing  - Midfoot Strike

Video 3: Pressure Tracing – Heel Strike

What you will also notice is that in all three videos the center of pressure marker passes right under the second metatarsal head toward the big tow at toe-off. Ever wonder why second metatarsal stress fractures are the most common type of foot fracture in runners? That’s why – it’s due to bending in late stance, not initial impact since the second met isn’t even touching the ground at contact!

So next time you hear someone call themselves a supinator, ask them exactly what they mean by that. My guess is most people don’t even know and were simply told that by someone else who watched them run. You can direct them to these videos because just as pronation is a completely normal part of the gait cycle, so is supination.

Read More

Underfoot Pressure Tracings of Forefoot, Midfoot, and Heel Strikes in Barefoot Runners: We All Supinate!

There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding how the foot initially contacts the ground during running. For example, some people like to refer to themselves as “supinators,” as if it’s a diagnosis of something unique and bad. Some think that a midfoot landing involves the entire bottom of the foot contacting the ground at the same time.The reality is that we almost always make initial contact somewhere on the outside margin of the foot with the foot in a supinated position. I don’t think I have ever seen a runner not do this in all of the videos I have, and thus a midfoot strike does not equal a flat foot strike, and we are all in fact “supinators.”

After initial contact along the outside margin, the foot everts and rolls inward (what we commonly refer to as pronation). The amount of intial supination, the speed with which the foot pronates, and the amount that it pronates are largely what differ between runners.

To illustrate the initial contact point, I want to direct you to three great videos from Daniel Lieberman’s lab at Harvard. These videos are part of the supplementary information from his 2010 study in Nature and provide underfoot pressure tracings from barefoot runners exhibiting forefoot, midfoot, and rearfoot strikes. Watch how pressure migrates from outside to inside in all three – in no case is there any pressure under the ball behind the big toe at initial contact. I’ve had some trouble getting the videos to play in my browser, so if that doesn’t work you can right-click and save them to watch them on your computer.

Video 1: Pressure Tracing – Forefoot Strike

Video 2: Pressure Tracing  - Midfoot Strike

Video 3: Pressure Tracing – Heel Strike

What you will also notice is that in all three videos the center of pressure marker passes right under the second metatarsal head toward the big tow at toe-off. Ever wonder why second metatarsal stress fractures are the most common type of foot fracture in runners? That’s why – it’s due to bending in late stance, not initial impact since the second met isn’t even touching the ground at contact!

So next time you hear someone call themselves a supinator, ask them exactly what they mean by that. My guess is most people don’t even know and were simply told that by someone else who watched them run. You can direct them to these videos because just as pronation is a completely normal part of the gait cycle, so is supination.

Read More

Running Form in My Son at 18 and 30 Months of Age

In a comment to a post I wrote earlier today someone suggested that I should take a video of my son running every six months to track how his form changes over time. This is a great idea, and my kids are used to being guinea pigs for me, so I thought I’d start by pulling together the first two videos I have of my littlest guy Benjamin.

Below is a video showing him running at 18 and 30 months of age. It's amazing to watch how much more fluid his movement is in the second clip, and I'm now really curious to find out at what point he'll alter his arm swing from straight to bent elbows. Time will tell!

Read More

Running Form in My Son at 18 and 30 Months of Age

In a comment to a post I wrote earlier today someone suggested that I should take a video of my son running every six months to track how his form changes over time. This is a great idea, and my kids are used to being guinea pigs for me, so I thought I’d start by pulling together the first two videos I have of my littlest guy Benjamin.

Below is a video showing him running at 18 and 30 months of age. It's amazing to watch how much more fluid his movement is in the second clip, and I'm now really curious to find out at what point he'll alter his arm swing from straight to bent elbows. Time will tell!

Read More

Panasonic FZ200 Video - 2 year-old Child Running in Slow Motion at 120fps

Yesterday I was playing around with a new camera (Panasonic FZ200) that I recently purchased for gait filming that will shoot 120 frames per second in 720p high definition (a first in a sub-$1,000.00 consumer grade camera as I’m aware; it also shoots 240fps in VGA which is solid). So far I’m really impressed with the camera compared to the Casio models I’ve used in the past, and hope to have a more detailed review on its utility for gait analysis in the not too distant future.

In addition to filming various neighborhood animals and my dogs (had to experiment with the new toy!), I got a nice clip of my 2 year-old son running down the road – take a look :) Since I know I’ll be asked, he’s wearing Merrell Barefoot Flux Gloves. You may need to adjust the video settings to watch the HD version, and I make no claims of being an expert videographer :)

Read More

Panasonic FZ200 Video - 2 year-old Child Running in Slow Motion at 120fps

Yesterday I was playing around with a new camera (Panasonic FZ200) that I recently purchased for gait filming that will shoot 120 frames per second in 720p high definition (a first in a sub-$1,000.00 consumer grade camera as I’m aware; it also shoots 240fps in VGA which is solid). So far I’m really impressed with the camera compared to the Casio models I’ve used in the past, and hope to have a more detailed review on its utility for gait analysis in the not too distant future.

In addition to filming various neighborhood animals and my dogs (had to experiment with the new toy!), I got a nice clip of my 2 year-old son running down the road – take a look :) Since I know I’ll be asked, he’s wearing Merrell Barefoot Flux Gloves. You may need to adjust the video settings to watch the HD version, and I make no claims of being an expert videographer :)

Read More

Altra Superior Trail Running Shoe: First Look Video

I just received a pair of Altra Superior trails shoes in the mail (I purchased them at Running Warehouse – they are now in-stock). My plan was to run in them today and write a first impression report tonight, but it turns out they run small so I need to send them back for a half-size up. In the interim, I thought I’d try something new and shoot a quick video showing some of the features of the shoe – here goes!

Read More

Altra Superior Trail Running Shoe: First Look Video

I just received a pair of Altra Superior trails shoes in the mail (I purchased them at Running Warehouse – they are now in-stock). My plan was to run in them today and write a first impression report tonight, but it turns out they run small so I need to send them back for a half-size up. In the interim, I thought I’d try something new and shoot a quick video showing some of the features of the shoe – here goes!

Read More

Switching to a Forefoot Strike: How Does it Affect Lower Back Movement and Shock Applied to the Body

A new study was just released ahead-of-print on the Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise website. The study was authored by Traci Delgado of UNLV and colleagues, and is titled “Effects of Foot Strike on Low Back Posture, Shock Attenuation, and Comfort in Running.”

The goal of the study was to determine how heel striking vs. forefoot striking while running might alter: 1) lower back movement, 2) peak leg acceleration, 3) impact shock attenuation (i.e., how much shock is attenuated from the shin to the head), and 4) subjective comfort.

Methods

To address these questions, the researchers had 43 runners (24 male, 19 female) run barefoot on a treadmill using both a heel striking and a forefoot striking gait. Since 84% of the runners were heel strikers, in the vast majority of cases forefoot striking was a novel gait with which the runners had little or no experience. Shock was measured using accelerometers attached to the tibia and head, and lower back movement was measured using an electrogoniometer.

Results

Results of this study showed that running with a forefoot strike:
1) decreased total range of motion in the lower back, but did not alter peak   flexion or extension
2) reduced peak tibial acceleration
3) reduced shock attentuation from the shin to head (since there was less shock to attenuate)
4) reduced subject running comfort

Commentary

One of my critiques of this paper is the manner in which they cued a forefoot strike. Here’s what they told runners to do: “1) ‘try to run on your toes’ and 2) ‘do not let your heels touch the ground.’”

This is not the typical way barefoot runners run (the heel almost always comes down after forefoot contact – see the video below from the NYC Barefoot Run), and is the same cueing applied in a previous study, which I wrote about in an article for Lower Extremity Review:

“…Laughton et al. found no significant difference in loading rates between rearfoot and forefoot strikers and increased tibial acceleration in forefoot-striking runners. However, they looked at natural rearfoot strikers asked to switch to a forefoot strike pattern rather than natural forefoot-striking runners, and, furthermore, they instructed runners to run with a “toe-strike” and not let the heel touch the ground. In my observation, natural toe running without heel contact is extremely rare among runners, and the authors point out that running with this style of gait could have caused artificial stiffening of the leg, leading to an increase in tibial shock.”

Interestingly, even though they advised runners to run in a similar manner, Delgado et al. actually found that tibial acceleration was lower in forefoot strikers in this case. This is the opposite of what Laughton et al. found, and I’d be curious to see the results if the heel were allowed to come since that would allow increased use of the ankle and calf musculature in shock absorption and could further reduce the need for movement at places like the knee, hip, and lower back.

Regarding the finding that adopting a FFS reduced overall back movement, they report the following:

“Greater overall low back excursion with a RFS pattern may suggest that this pattern creates a greater demand for stability in the lumbar spine. Therefore, this foot strike could possibly not be beneficial for individuals with stability problems, including hypermobility or atrophied lumbar spine musculature. However, the change in ROM did not exceed known error of the measuring device for lumbar ROM, suggesting that the effect may not be clinically significant even though it reached statistical significance.”

Thus, the results thus could indicate a positive effect of switching to a forefoot strike for those with lower back pain, but the difference was not of such a magnitude that they felt comfortable stating this with certainty (anybody experienced a reduction in lower back pain as a result of changing footstrike? – let us know in the comments). Again, it would be interesting to see if things might change with slightly different cueing and greater experience with a forefoot strike – it’s always difficult to know with instantaneous changes with a novel movement pattern will change with time. Following on the the latter point, the authors propose that the reason for the perception that heel striking while barefoot was more comfortable despite causing greater shock was because the forefoot strike was novel for most of the subjects (I can’t help but wonder if the advice “to run on your toes” was also detrimental to comfort – this style of forefoot striking puts a lot more strain on the calf muscles).

Finally, regarding impact shock they say the following:

“This study revealed that there was lesser peak leg impact at contact when running with a FFS pattern. This is consistent with current evidence suggesting that running with a FFS would decrease shock when compared to running RFS (6,29,31). Shock attenuation was also observed to be greater with RFS than FFS; there is more shock absorbed throughout the body when running RFS. This may be due to the overall greater foot-ground impact to be generated in RFS, thus increasing the magnitude of shock to be attenuated.”

So, like many other studies, this one shows that running barefoot with a forefoot strike reduces shock to the body relative to running barefoot with a heel strike. Not much surprise there, but another piece of evidence suggesting that if you plan to run barefoot, it may be best to avoid those heels!

Read More