Hey Everyone! This is a persuasive essay I wrote for an English class recently. I was pleased with the result, and wanted to extend its audience! I hope you like it!
It is difficult to pass those odd-looking toe shoes that have found their way onto the shelves of many footwear stores, without taking a second glance. Although Vibram Five Fingers’ appearance is quirky, they are a highly purchased item in concurrence with the rise of barefoot and minimalist running. These types of locomotion are the intriguing topics of much conversation, research, and debate in today’s athletic world. Whether it was the new health developments, testimonials, or notable research that drew attention, interest has been sparked among athletes and podiatrists alike. I am one of those athletes.
Barefoot running is characterized by the complete lack of footwear while exercising, and a change in the foot-striking form. It parallels minimalist running, which involves the use of lightweight, thin-soled shoes, with no exterior support, simulating running barefoot. Both have been noted for years, but recently are the attractors of greater focus, doubtlessly in conjunction with developing technology and advanced testing abilities. While credible evidence exists to support the introduction, or rather reintroduction, of this form of running, it has yet to be mainstreamed. Some postulate that major sport companies, such as Nike or Adidas, have purposely dampened new footwear findings, but the more realistic hypothesis is purely that any new study or development takes time to gain familiarity and popular understanding.
I have been involved in track and running sports since middle school. As an athletic teenager, I experienced frequent hip and knee pain. Telling myself I was “too young for this,” I began studying new health developments in running. A co-athlete was involved in the minimalist running movement, and encouraged me in that direction. Eager to improve my ailments, I embarked on researching it myself. It is now my belief that minimalist style running is the most ergonomic, healthy, and natural way of locomotion. I waded through a lot of material before coming to this conclusion. My conversion centered on a bettered understanding of the biomechanics of locomotion, credible research projects, and personal gratification through running minimalist-style.
For those who have yet to hear of this movement, or remain skeptical, I present the research, points, and evidence that convinced this die-hard Nike fan to convert. Regardless of whether you are an athlete or businessman, hopefully I will encourage your interest and understanding in these forms of running, and their supporting data.
Both barefoot and minimalist running are defended by the same studies, as they follow virtually the same patterns. Although comprehensive and extensive research projects are few, many informed conclusions, including a notable Harvard study, point towards the greater benefits of minimalist running, as opposed to cushioned-sole sneaker running.
From an evolutionary standpoint, our bodies have learned and adapted to run since the beginnings of bipedalism. The essential protection from dangerous animals and other threats would have encouraged this development. Accordingly, at the time humans underwent these changes, footwear would be non-existent. In alignment with Charles Darwin, natural selection would have favored those with a skeletal and muscular structure capable of running most efficiently and ergonomically barefoot. The subsequent human species would evolve biologically to lower the risks and discomfort when barefoot or minimally shod. From a Creationist, or more religious standpoint, our bodies were intelligently designed to be self-sustaining and independently existent. God would have created the human kind in perfect form, with no insufficiencies. He knew we would need to defend ourselves, as well as traverse long distances; He created a healthy, strong, self-reliant body. Whether we evolved or were designed this way, the truth remains that shoes are a recent development and by no means part of the original human structural dependence or experience.
Our bodies respond positively to barefoot running. The skin of the foot is more resistant to the inflammatory effects of abrasion than any other skin on our body. Those fascinating biological implements on the end of your leg also have a higher pain threshold, and higher ability for sensory feedback. (Robbins et al) The significance of the latter will be extrapolated further into this paper.
I consider the most convincing piece of scientific evidence supporting minimalist running to be the proven decrease in bodily force exerted when barefoot or minimally shod versus when wearing cushioned footwear. Daniel Leiberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University has done notable research in this area. Through a controlled test that accounted all factors, including the subjects’ past medical history, age, weight, and etc., he found that barefoot runners “generate smaller collision forces.” That is, they tread lighter. They put less force into the ground, and concurrently, less force on their bodies. (Leiberman) The impact of striking the ground generates a force of two-and-a-half times the body weight at the foot, and up to seven times the body weight at the hip. (Froncioni) Envision doing this one-thousand times per mile; less force on the joints is appealing, no?
A main cause of humans’ forceful gait is “decreased proprioception,” or the subconscious ability to monitor and adjust one’s stride from information transmitted to the brain via nerves in the feet. (Warburton) The foot, like the hand, has the ability to transmit a complex amount of signals. (Schumacher) When running minimalist or barefoot-style, terrain irregularities, differences in soil texture, slope, and so forth, are constantly communicated to the brain. In response, we subconsciously or even consciously change the way they are running. Imagine your body as an automatic vehicle, shifting gears depending on slope, speed, and the like. Upon wearing a cushioned shoe, the nerve receptors become confused; they instruct your body to step harder, in an effort to “find” the ground. (Froncioni) Over continued misuse, they eventually decrease activity and weaken, much like an atrophying muscle. “Use it or you lose it” is an applicable phrase.
This evidence may also reveal a cause for injury among athletes. Barefoot runners engage both their body and their mind. They are constantly on the lookout for rocks, sharp sticks, changes in terrain, and other dangers. They are cautious runners, and tread lightly. But a shod runner is convinced that shoes will protect him from all harm; he runs more carelessly. This decrease in mental engagement is another piece of the puzzle that may eventually reveal current running shoes to be a greater detriment than aid.
A crucial aspect of barefoot running is the change in stride. There are three basic forms of foot striking: rear-foot, mid-foot, and fore-foot. The rear-foot strike is characterized by landing on one’s heel, using body weight to rock forward to the toe, and push off. A mid-foot strike is simultaneously landing on the heel and ball of the foot, then pushing off using body strength. Finally, the fore-foot strike is landing on the ball of the foot, and using a springing motion to propel the body forward. In “Foot Strike and Injury rates in Endurance Runners: A Retrospective Study,” Leiberman observed and analyzed fifty-two collegiate cross-country runners. He compared those who used a rear-foot strike, versus a fore-foot/mid-foot strike. Out of the runners, thirty-six (fifty-nine percent) used the rear-foot method. After studying their injury history, it was revealed that the rear-foot strikers were twice as likely to experience a repetitive stress injury. “Competitive cross country runners on a college team incur high injury rates,” his report concludes, “but runners who habitually rear-foot strike have significantly higher rates of repetitive stress injury than those who mostly fore-foot strike.” (Leiberman) The obvious question is, “Why?” Leiberman’s hypothesis condemns the sudden spike in vertical force caused by the rear-foot strike. When a runner lands on the ball of his foot, his calf muscle is lengthened, and better prepared to receive the impact. Instead of the abrupt shock to the skeletal structure caused by a rear-foot strike, the fore-foot strike eases one into the step, and applies the force to the muscle. That way, the foot and calf receive the impact, rather than the bones of the ankle and hips.
Fore-foot striking is an essential part of barefoot running. When the calf absorbs the impact, it allows for successful storage and recoil of energy, as well as reducing the amount of force on the bones. (Rothschild) In the study “Effects of Footwear and Strike on Running Economy,” it was found that runners wearing minimalist shoes were 2.41 percent more economic in movement when forefoot striking. (Leiberman) They conserved greater amounts of oxygen, and were more ergonomic in their locomotion. A study titled “Barefoot Running” performed by Michael Warburton, a physiotherapist, revealed that the energy cost of running was reduced by about four percent when the feet are unshod. While that appears as a small percentage, it is a major finding in conjunction with long-distance running. Finally, returning to the fore-foot strike, when we run barefoot or minimally, our limbs return seventy percent of the energy they absorb when striking. With running shoes, the return is considerably less. (Warburton)
While barefoot running shows much potential for new health developments and decreased stress injuries among athletes, there is still much more to learn. As increasing studies and research projects are performed, I have confidence they will continue to support barefoot and minimalist running.
At this point, hopefully you are interested and wondering “Alright, where do I begin?” I will start by noting the greatest detriment that prevails: injury due to muscle overuse. Many read about barefoot/minimalist running, and in haste to rid themselves of joint pain and join the revolution, dive in with complete abandon. But before throwing your sneakers away and heading to your local sporting goods store to buy those odd-looking toe shoes, there is essential knowledge to gain. An effective encapsulation of how the emerging barefoot/minimalist runner must be informed was presented in a meme. It contrasted two pictures: one of a winding trail that extended for miles across a scenic landscape, and the other of a short stretch of sidewalk. It was titled, “When you first start barefoot running.” The first picture captioned, “How far you want to run;” the second, “How far you SHOULD run!” There lies the clincher. The average human body has been weakened under prolonged use of cushioned footwear, and disuse of essential arch, calf and foot muscles used in barefoot/minimalist-style running. One must ease into it. There is a wealth of exercises, training routines, and advice for the novice minimalist runner; simply begin with a Google search. While the articles and routines cover a wide variety of topics, the pinnacle knowledge is to gradually accustom the body to this new style of running. From personal experience, one will feel free and limitless, and the urge to run for miles on end. But to avoid a potential injury, one must work slowly to regain their regular routine. Trust me, attempt a lengthy run immediately, and your body will protest all movement the following day!
I will conclude with the important note that barefoot and minimalist running is not for everyone. Those with a history of foot and back problems, as well as irreversible joint, bone, or muscle issues, may rely on a specific type of footwear for health and pain-free living. (Brown) I do not encourage them to make any changes that their health providers believe may be a detriment to their body. But at the same time, many find that if they follow a training program and slowly make the change, discomfort will lessen, and joint/bone/muscle problems may even improve. As the body returns to its natural way of running, it will eventually find a niche that is just right, and thrive. Challenging the accepted is difficult; however, we must constantly do so in order to achieve our full potential.
References:
Brown, Kelly, “Shoes for People With Medical Problems,” eHow. Demand Media, http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8042421_shoes-people-medical-problems.html.
Froncioni, Joseph, “Athletic Footwear and Running Injuries.” Quickswood. Joseph Froncioni. http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2006/08/athletic_footwe.html.
Leiberman, Daniel. “Foot Strike Patterns and Collision Forces in Habitually Shod Versus Shod Runners,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44, no. 7 (2012): 1325–1334
Leiberman, Daniel. “Foot Strike and Injury rates in Endurance Runners: A Retrospective Study” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44, no. 7 (2012): 1325–1334
Leiberman, Daniel. “Effects of Footwear and Strike Type on Running Economy,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44, no. 7 (2012): 1335–1343
Barefoot running is characterized by the complete lack of footwear while exercising, and a change in the foot-striking form. It parallels minimalist running, which involves the use of lightweight, thin-soled shoes, with no exterior support, simulating running barefoot. Both have been noted for years, but recently are the attractors of greater focus, doubtlessly in conjunction with developing technology and advanced testing abilities. While credible evidence exists to support the introduction, or rather reintroduction, of this form of running, it has yet to be mainstreamed. Some postulate that major sport companies, such as Nike or Adidas, have purposely dampened new footwear findings, but the more realistic hypothesis is purely that any new study or development takes time to gain familiarity and popular understanding.
I have been involved in track and running sports since middle school. As an athletic teenager, I experienced frequent hip and knee pain. Telling myself I was “too young for this,” I began studying new health developments in running. A co-athlete was involved in the minimalist running movement, and encouraged me in that direction. Eager to improve my ailments, I embarked on researching it myself. It is now my belief that minimalist style running is the most ergonomic, healthy, and natural way of locomotion. I waded through a lot of material before coming to this conclusion. My conversion centered on a bettered understanding of the biomechanics of locomotion, credible research projects, and personal gratification through running minimalist-style.
For those who have yet to hear of this movement, or remain skeptical, I present the research, points, and evidence that convinced this die-hard Nike fan to convert. Regardless of whether you are an athlete or businessman, hopefully I will encourage your interest and understanding in these forms of running, and their supporting data.
Both barefoot and minimalist running are defended by the same studies, as they follow virtually the same patterns. Although comprehensive and extensive research projects are few, many informed conclusions, including a notable Harvard study, point towards the greater benefits of minimalist running, as opposed to cushioned-sole sneaker running.
From an evolutionary standpoint, our bodies have learned and adapted to run since the beginnings of bipedalism. The essential protection from dangerous animals and other threats would have encouraged this development. Accordingly, at the time humans underwent these changes, footwear would be non-existent. In alignment with Charles Darwin, natural selection would have favored those with a skeletal and muscular structure capable of running most efficiently and ergonomically barefoot. The subsequent human species would evolve biologically to lower the risks and discomfort when barefoot or minimally shod. From a Creationist, or more religious standpoint, our bodies were intelligently designed to be self-sustaining and independently existent. God would have created the human kind in perfect form, with no insufficiencies. He knew we would need to defend ourselves, as well as traverse long distances; He created a healthy, strong, self-reliant body. Whether we evolved or were designed this way, the truth remains that shoes are a recent development and by no means part of the original human structural dependence or experience.
Our bodies respond positively to barefoot running. The skin of the foot is more resistant to the inflammatory effects of abrasion than any other skin on our body. Those fascinating biological implements on the end of your leg also have a higher pain threshold, and higher ability for sensory feedback. (Robbins et al) The significance of the latter will be extrapolated further into this paper.
I consider the most convincing piece of scientific evidence supporting minimalist running to be the proven decrease in bodily force exerted when barefoot or minimally shod versus when wearing cushioned footwear. Daniel Leiberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University has done notable research in this area. Through a controlled test that accounted all factors, including the subjects’ past medical history, age, weight, and etc., he found that barefoot runners “generate smaller collision forces.” That is, they tread lighter. They put less force into the ground, and concurrently, less force on their bodies. (Leiberman) The impact of striking the ground generates a force of two-and-a-half times the body weight at the foot, and up to seven times the body weight at the hip. (Froncioni) Envision doing this one-thousand times per mile; less force on the joints is appealing, no?
A main cause of humans’ forceful gait is “decreased proprioception,” or the subconscious ability to monitor and adjust one’s stride from information transmitted to the brain via nerves in the feet. (Warburton) The foot, like the hand, has the ability to transmit a complex amount of signals. (Schumacher) When running minimalist or barefoot-style, terrain irregularities, differences in soil texture, slope, and so forth, are constantly communicated to the brain. In response, we subconsciously or even consciously change the way they are running. Imagine your body as an automatic vehicle, shifting gears depending on slope, speed, and the like. Upon wearing a cushioned shoe, the nerve receptors become confused; they instruct your body to step harder, in an effort to “find” the ground. (Froncioni) Over continued misuse, they eventually decrease activity and weaken, much like an atrophying muscle. “Use it or you lose it” is an applicable phrase.
This evidence may also reveal a cause for injury among athletes. Barefoot runners engage both their body and their mind. They are constantly on the lookout for rocks, sharp sticks, changes in terrain, and other dangers. They are cautious runners, and tread lightly. But a shod runner is convinced that shoes will protect him from all harm; he runs more carelessly. This decrease in mental engagement is another piece of the puzzle that may eventually reveal current running shoes to be a greater detriment than aid.
A crucial aspect of barefoot running is the change in stride. There are three basic forms of foot striking: rear-foot, mid-foot, and fore-foot. The rear-foot strike is characterized by landing on one’s heel, using body weight to rock forward to the toe, and push off. A mid-foot strike is simultaneously landing on the heel and ball of the foot, then pushing off using body strength. Finally, the fore-foot strike is landing on the ball of the foot, and using a springing motion to propel the body forward. In “Foot Strike and Injury rates in Endurance Runners: A Retrospective Study,” Leiberman observed and analyzed fifty-two collegiate cross-country runners. He compared those who used a rear-foot strike, versus a fore-foot/mid-foot strike. Out of the runners, thirty-six (fifty-nine percent) used the rear-foot method. After studying their injury history, it was revealed that the rear-foot strikers were twice as likely to experience a repetitive stress injury. “Competitive cross country runners on a college team incur high injury rates,” his report concludes, “but runners who habitually rear-foot strike have significantly higher rates of repetitive stress injury than those who mostly fore-foot strike.” (Leiberman) The obvious question is, “Why?” Leiberman’s hypothesis condemns the sudden spike in vertical force caused by the rear-foot strike. When a runner lands on the ball of his foot, his calf muscle is lengthened, and better prepared to receive the impact. Instead of the abrupt shock to the skeletal structure caused by a rear-foot strike, the fore-foot strike eases one into the step, and applies the force to the muscle. That way, the foot and calf receive the impact, rather than the bones of the ankle and hips.
Fore-foot striking is an essential part of barefoot running. When the calf absorbs the impact, it allows for successful storage and recoil of energy, as well as reducing the amount of force on the bones. (Rothschild) In the study “Effects of Footwear and Strike on Running Economy,” it was found that runners wearing minimalist shoes were 2.41 percent more economic in movement when forefoot striking. (Leiberman) They conserved greater amounts of oxygen, and were more ergonomic in their locomotion. A study titled “Barefoot Running” performed by Michael Warburton, a physiotherapist, revealed that the energy cost of running was reduced by about four percent when the feet are unshod. While that appears as a small percentage, it is a major finding in conjunction with long-distance running. Finally, returning to the fore-foot strike, when we run barefoot or minimally, our limbs return seventy percent of the energy they absorb when striking. With running shoes, the return is considerably less. (Warburton)
While barefoot running shows much potential for new health developments and decreased stress injuries among athletes, there is still much more to learn. As increasing studies and research projects are performed, I have confidence they will continue to support barefoot and minimalist running.
At this point, hopefully you are interested and wondering “Alright, where do I begin?” I will start by noting the greatest detriment that prevails: injury due to muscle overuse. Many read about barefoot/minimalist running, and in haste to rid themselves of joint pain and join the revolution, dive in with complete abandon. But before throwing your sneakers away and heading to your local sporting goods store to buy those odd-looking toe shoes, there is essential knowledge to gain. An effective encapsulation of how the emerging barefoot/minimalist runner must be informed was presented in a meme. It contrasted two pictures: one of a winding trail that extended for miles across a scenic landscape, and the other of a short stretch of sidewalk. It was titled, “When you first start barefoot running.” The first picture captioned, “How far you want to run;” the second, “How far you SHOULD run!” There lies the clincher. The average human body has been weakened under prolonged use of cushioned footwear, and disuse of essential arch, calf and foot muscles used in barefoot/minimalist-style running. One must ease into it. There is a wealth of exercises, training routines, and advice for the novice minimalist runner; simply begin with a Google search. While the articles and routines cover a wide variety of topics, the pinnacle knowledge is to gradually accustom the body to this new style of running. From personal experience, one will feel free and limitless, and the urge to run for miles on end. But to avoid a potential injury, one must work slowly to regain their regular routine. Trust me, attempt a lengthy run immediately, and your body will protest all movement the following day!
I will conclude with the important note that barefoot and minimalist running is not for everyone. Those with a history of foot and back problems, as well as irreversible joint, bone, or muscle issues, may rely on a specific type of footwear for health and pain-free living. (Brown) I do not encourage them to make any changes that their health providers believe may be a detriment to their body. But at the same time, many find that if they follow a training program and slowly make the change, discomfort will lessen, and joint/bone/muscle problems may even improve. As the body returns to its natural way of running, it will eventually find a niche that is just right, and thrive. Challenging the accepted is difficult; however, we must constantly do so in order to achieve our full potential.
References:
Brown, Kelly, “Shoes for People With Medical Problems,” eHow. Demand Media, http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8042421_shoes-people-medical-problems.html.
Froncioni, Joseph, “Athletic Footwear and Running Injuries.” Quickswood. Joseph Froncioni. http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2006/08/athletic_footwe.html.
Leiberman, Daniel. “Foot Strike Patterns and Collision Forces in Habitually Shod Versus Shod Runners,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44, no. 7 (2012): 1325–1334
Leiberman, Daniel. “Foot Strike and Injury rates in Endurance Runners: A Retrospective Study” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44, no. 7 (2012): 1325–1334
Leiberman, Daniel. “Effects of Footwear and Strike Type on Running Economy,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44, no. 7 (2012): 1335–1343
Robbins, Steven, Gouw, Gerard, McClaran, Jacqueline, and Waked, Edward. “"Protective Sensation of the Plantar Aspect of the Foot," Foot & Ankle 14, no. 6 (1993): 347-352
Rothschild, Carey. “Running Barefoot or in Minimalist Shoes: Evidence or Conjecture?” Strength and Conditioning Journal 34, no. 2 (2012): 8–17
Rothschild, Carey. “Running Barefoot or in Minimalist Shoes: Evidence or Conjecture?” Strength and Conditioning Journal 34, no. 2 (2012): 8–17
Schumacher, Dr. S. A. “Communication Between the Brain and the Feet” FootDoc. The Achilles Foot Health Centre. http://www.footdoc.ca/Website%20Nerves%20Of%20The%20Feet.htm
Warburton, Michael. “Barefoot Running,” Sportscience 5, no. 3 (2001)
Warburton, Michael. “Barefoot Running,” Sportscience 5, no. 3 (2001)
No comments:
Post a Comment