TREAD LIGHTLY

Muscle Activation Differs Between Barefoot and Shod Walking

2012-07-30T18:10:00.001-04:00

There has been some debate lately on whether going barefoot actually strengthens muscles relative to the shod condition. My take is that being barefoot simply changes force application in such a way that different muscles are worked harder, so some may get stronger, and others will be worked less and may get weaker. Doing a mixture of both barefoot and shod movement may provide the best of both worlds.

Regarding this, I received the abstract below in my weekly email digest for running related scientific articles. The article indicates that muscle activation in the tibialis anterior, peroneus longus, and medial gastrocnemius all differ between barefoot and shod walking. Specific details on how things changed are difficult to ascertain from the abstract, and I hope to comment more fully over on Runblogger once I get ahold of the full text of the study. Nonetheless, it supports the contention that muscles work differently when barefoot.

Here’s a link to the abstract on PubMed.

The influence of footwear on the electromyographic activity of selected lower limb muscles during walking.

J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012 Jul 24. [Epub ahead of print]

Scott LA, Murley GS, Wickham JB.

Source

Department of Podiatry, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic., Australia; Lower Extremity and Gait Studies Program, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic., Australia; Department of Podiatry, Northern Health, Bundoora, Vic., Australia.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a standard flexible shoe and a stability running shoe on lower limb muscle activity during walking. Twenty-eight young asymptomatic adults with flat-arched feet were recruited. While walking, electromyographic (EMG) activity was recorded from tibialis posterior and peroneus longus via intramuscular electrodes; and from tibialis anterior and medial gastrocnemius via surface electrodes. Three experimental conditions were assessed: (i) barefoot, (ii) a standard flexible shoe, (iii) a stability running shoe. Results showed significant differences for the peak amplitude and the time of peak amplitude for tibialis anterior, peroneus longus and medial gastrocnemius when comparing the three experimental conditions (p<0.05). Significant differences were detected primarily between the barefoot and shoe conditions and with relatively small effect sizes for peroneus longus, tibialis anterior and medial gastrocnemius. Few significant differences were found between the two shoe styles. We discuss how these changes are most likely associated with the shoe upper bracing the foot, the shape of the shoe outer-sole and weight of the shoes. Further research is needed to investigate differences between these shoe styles when participants walk for longer distances (i.e. over 1000m) and following fatigue.

Physiotherapist Blaise Dubois on Children’s Shoes

2012-07-09T20:39:00.001-04:00

Canadian physiotherapist Blaise Dubois just posted an excellent piece on choosing shoes for children. Like Blaise, I believe that children should be permitted to go barefoot as much as possible, and if they wear shoes they should be roomy, flat, and flexible to allow for proper foot development. Here’s an excerpt from what Blaise says on the issue:

“…it is pretty simple, isn’t it? The more often your children are barefoot is better! If the social environment or types of ground surface require shoes, you should provide your children with ULTRA minimalist shoes, without a raised heel or an arch support, as thin as possible and very flexible in all directions.”

You can read Blaise’s full post, in both French and English, here: http://www.therunningclinic.ca/blog/2012/07/les-chaussures-chez-les-enfants-shoes-for-children/

Do All Elites Run at a 180 Cadence: None of the 5K Finalists at the US Olympic Trials Did

2012-07-08T14:49:00.001-04:00

One of the most common myths I encounter in discussions about running form is that 180 steps per minute is some kind of magic number (Google “180 cadence” to see what I mean). It’s not, and I’ll be happy when this one gets put to rest. Much of the mythology about this number stems from a misinterpretation of what Jack Daniels reported in his book “Daniels’ Running Formula” regarding the cadence of elite runners at the 1984 Olympics. He did not observe that they all ran at a 180 cadence, he observed that they ran at a cadence of 180 steps/min or more. My emphasis on the “or more.”

We cover the topic of optimal running cadence for efficiency and reduction of joint loading extensively in Chapter 8 of Tread Lightly, but here I wanted to share some data that I compiled from a set of slow motion videos taken by physical therapist Jeff Moreno at the 2012 US Olympic Trials. Jeff obtained footage filmed at 210 frames per second from both the Men’s and Women’s 5000 meter finals (as well as the 1500, which I hope to examine in a separate post).

Here are the two videos:

Women's 5000 Meter Final

Men's 5000 Meter Final

Because I know the frame rates at which these videos were captured (210 fps), I can simply count the number of frames between various stride events (e.g., initial contact, toe off, etc) by importing the videos into Quicktime. A few simple calculations in Excel allows me to produce a bunch of data on stride kinematics, which are presented below. Runner order is the order in which they pass the camera at this point of the race, not the final finishing order – If I’ve made any ID errors please let me know! Contact time is for the first footstrike observed, swing time is the time from toe off of the first contacting foot to the next contact of the same foot. Cadence is determined by determining stride time and using that to extrapolate the number of strides that would be taken in 60 seconds, then multiplying that value times two to yield steps/minute (a stride is from the contact of one foot to the next contact of the same foot). All times are in fractions of a second.

Here are the data (Update 7/10/2012 – I initially made a dumb Excel error in my calculation of flight time – doesn’t affect any of the other numbers though – data are now correct):

Order	Name	Cadence	Contact Time 1	Swing Time	Flight Time
1	Bernard Lagat	195	0.143	0.471	0.167
2	Galen Rupp	187	0.138	0.505	0.176
3	Lopez Lomong	192	0.157	0.467	0.157
4	Andrew Bumbalough	202	0.148	0.448	0.143
5	Mo Trafeh	191	0.171	0.457	0.143
6	Benjamin True	192	0.162	0.462	0.148
7	Elliott Heath	205	0.162	0.424	0.138
8	Hassan Mead	191	0.171	0.457	0.143
9	Scott Bauhs	188	0.157	na	0.162
10	Ryan Hill	191	0.162	0.467	0.152
11	Trevor Dunbar	197	0.176	0.433	0.129



Order	Name	Cadence	Contact Time 1	Swing Time	Flight Time
1	Julia Lucas	202	0.152	0.443	0.152
2	Molly Huddle	197	0.167	0.443	0.138
3	Julie Culley	195	0.171	0.443	0.133
4	Abbey D'Agostino	189	0.167	0.467	0.143
5	Emily Infeld	192	0.162	0.462	0.157
6	Elizabeth Maloy	188	0.176	na	0.143
7	Kim Conley	197	0.171	0.438	0.124
8	Lisa Uhl	210	0.157	0.414	0.124

What you’ll note is that at least at this point of the race, none of these elites were running with a cadence of 180. In fact, the vast majority of them were running with a cadence above 190, with some pushing higher than 200! My hope is that data like this will put the 180 cadence myth to rest for good. I’ll say it again: 180 is not an “optimal number”!

[Note: A few people have commented to me that cadence may be on the high end for these runners because they are nearing the end of the race. Even if this is true, which we can’t tell from limited video footage, it further makes my point – cadence varies with speed (I will say that I have video from the Boston Marathon of elites with equally high cadence numbers). It’s quite possible that Lisa Uhl has a high turnover here because she’s making a move to pass. I’ve done a bit of experimentation with how my own cadence changes with speed here: http://www.runblogger.com/2011/09/running-speed-human-variability-and.html]

One interesting thing to note about these data is the overall similarity of the numbers between runners. Contact and swing times, for example, seem to fall in a fairly narrow range for most of the competitors, though there are a few notable individuals. Galen Rupp, who won both the 5K and 10K at the trials has the shortest contact time and longest swing time of any of the competitors. Unfortunately, it’s hard to know if these gait characteristics contributed to his success. Among the women, Julia Lucas had the shortest contact time at that point in the race – she was in the lead, but ran out of steam in the final lap. Lisa Uhl had the highest cadence of any runner, male or female. All interesting observations, but what they mean from a practical standpoint is hard for me to know given my lack of a coaching background or any attempt to research factors that contribute to elite performance (my interest is in trying to understand how shoes work and why recreational runners get hurt).

I’ll finish by saying that the value of the 180 number is that it’s higher than the cadence of most recreational runners, and a cadence significantly lower than 180 can indicate a problem with overstriding. But, holding fast to a single number for an optimal cadence makes no sense to me, and I prefer to think in terms of a range (say 170-190), or even just aiming to increase you cadence by 5-10% from baseline if you believe you are an overstrider.

Video of “Barefoot” Kenbob Saxton Running Without Shoes (Of Course!)

2012-06-21T12:40:00.001-04:00

Video of “Barefoot” Kenbob Saxton running barefoot on a treadmill in Dr. Daniel Lieberman’s Skeletal Biology Lab at Harvard University:

Should We Heel Strike When Walking?

2012-06-13T13:43:00.001-04:00

I occasionally get emails in which I’m asked the question in the title of this post: should we heel strike when walking? Occasionally people express frustration that they seem to be unable to avoid heel striking when they walk, even if barefoot. Now, I don’t even necessarily think heel striking is all bad even when running (if moderate and not paired with a big overstride), but when it comes to walking, heel striking is completely normal, even without shoes on your feet.

It’s important to recognize that walking and running are totally different gaits from a biomechanical perspective, and what you do in one doesn’t really translate directly to what you do in the other. You’ll typically hear walking described as a heel-toe gait, whereas running tends to be more variable depending on things like footwear (or lack thereof), surface, speed (e.g., sprinting is almost always a forefoot contact), etc.

The reality is a bit more complicated than what is described above. We probably use multiple contact types in both gaits on a regular basis depending on the situation and conditions we find ourselves in. If you don’t believe me, try an experiment. The next time you go for a walk outside, do it barefoot and pay close attention to your feet. In my personal experience, heel-toe is the gait I use when walking steadily on a smooth, hard surface such as a clear asphalt road. It’s my “travelling” walking gait. But, when the surface gets irregular or when there is debris on the ground, I tend to shift to a modified forefoot walk. Why? Because bringing the bare heel down on a rock or stick hurts, so we adapt our gait on the fly to protect ourselves. Now, the forefoot contact I make when walking feels different than a running forefoot strike – it’s more of a full-forefoot landing rather than an initial contact on the lateral forefoot of a supinated foot. So, even though we may forefoot contact in both walking and running on occasion, it’s probably not the same thing from a biomechanical perspective.

So to answer the question at the outset: yes, it’s completely normal to heel strike when walking. It may not be what you do all the time, but it’s probably what you should do under most normal circumstances.

Still don’t believe me? Take a look at the gorillas in the video below. I’m quite certain they’ve never worn shoes, and they seems pretty comfortable walking on their heels (particularly the second one – even gorillas have gait variation!) :)

United States CDC Maps Showing Rates of Obesity, Physical Inactivity, Type II Diabetes, and Heart Disease Death

2012-06-11T20:59:00.001-04:00

I’m working on a book-related presentation that I’ll be giving in Hanover, NH next Wednesday evening and have been poring through the CDC website for updated data on physical activity and obesity trends in the US. Found updates of the following four graphs showing rates of physical inactivity (lack of leisure-time activity), obesity, Type II diabetes, and Heart Disease deaths – thought I’d share them here. Haven’t found one on dietary factors yet, but the patterns are certainly not surprising:

2009 Age-Adjusted Estimates of the Percentage of Adults Who Are Physically Inactive

2009 Age-Adjusted Estimates of the Percentage of Adults Who Are Obese

2009 Age-Adjusted Estimates of the Percentage of Adults with Diagnosed Diabetes

2000-2006 Heart Disease Death Rates Among Adults 35+

Are Barefoot Running Transition Injuries Actually Uncommon?

2012-06-10T13:54:00.001-04:00

By Pete Larson

We spend quite a bit of page-space in Tread Lightly discussing the incidence and possible causes of barefoot/minimalist running transition injuries. Thus, it is with some interest that after reading Steve Magness’ recent post on studies presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine that I hopped onto the meeting website and came across the following presentation:

The abstract of the study, conducted by Allison Altman of the University of Delaware and Irene Davis from the Spaulding National Running Center at Harvard Medical School, reads as follows:

There are more than 16 million runners in the United States. Of these runners, up to 79% are injured each year. It has been suggested that an increasing number of runners are converting to barefoot running to avoid injuries by running with a softer landing pattern. However, the alteration in mechanics associated with this conversion may increase the risk of injury during the transition. PURPOSE: To determine the injury patterns associated with the transition from shod to barefoot running. METHODS: 109 barefoot runners were recruited from online advertisements. These runners were between 18-50 yrs and were running at least 10 miles/week. Injuries associated with barefoot transition were reported to a web-based survey. Injuries were divided into musculoskeletal injuries (MS_INJ) and injuries to the plantar surface of the foot (PL_INJ). MS_INJ were further divided into those that were professionally assessed where a clear diagnosis was noted, and those that were self-reported. RESULTS: 17% (18/109) of the runners sustained a MS_INJ during their transition with half of those (9/109) seeking medical attention. 15% (16/109) of barefoot runners sustained PL_INJ. 37 total injuries were reported, with 21 being MS_INJ, and 16 were PL_INJ. The most common MS_INJ were foot, arch, calf and lower leg pain. Of the PL_INJ, blisters were the most common. Cuts, thought to be a significant risk with barefoot running, only occurred in 2/109 runners. CONCLUSION: Overall, the occurrence of transition injuries was relatively low. Conditioning of the arch and lower leg muscles, coupled with a gradual toughening of the plantar surface of the foot should help to reduce these injuries during transition.

And below is the table showing the injury results:

Table 1. Injuries reported during transition to barefoot running.

Musculoskeletal Injuries
Diagnosed	# INJ	Self-reported	#INJ
Plantar fasciitis	2	Pain on top of foot	4
Posterior tibialis strain	2	Achilles pain	2
Dorsal foot pain	1	Calf pain	2
Fibular stress fracture	1	Shin pain	2
Gastroc-soleus strain	1	Arch pain	1
Metatarsal stress fracture	1	Total (#injuries/#runners)	11/9
Ankle joint impingement	1
Iliotibial Band Syndrome	1
Total (#injuries/#runners)	10/9

Plantar Surface Injuries	#INJ
Blisters	12
Cuts	2
Bruises	1
Stubbed toe	1
Total (#injuries/#runners)	16/14

Now, it’s important to note that meeting abstracts such as the one above are necessarily short, don’t provide a lot of information regarding methodology, and are not equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal article. As such, extreme caution is warranted when it comes to interpretation. But, the results of this study are rather interesting, and I suspect will be fodder for some interesting discussion and debate.

Almost every time I read a news article about barefoot running I see a quote from a medical professional claiming that they are seeing something equivalent to a wave of “barefoot running” related injuries. I put barefoot running in quotes because it’s very difficult to distinguish whether they are talking about people getting hurt while actually running with nothing on their feet, or whether these injuries are occurring in people wearing “barefoot-style” shoes, or even just one particular type of “barefoot-style” shoe. This, to me, is a very important distinction, and is why I hate it when the word barefoot is misused. Barefoot means nothing on the feet. Period.

Now, if I had to guess, and this is totally speculation since I have no data to support this, most of the injuries seen in clinics are probably occurring in people running in barefoot-style footwear. Why? A couple of reasons. First, if my observations at races over the past few years are representative of anything, there just aren’t that many full-time barefoot runners out there. Second, as often pointed out by regular barefooters, barefoot running is a great self-limiter. It is hard to do too much too soon as a new barefoot runner because your plantar skin will let you know very quickly that it has had enough. And if you do go too far and damage your soles, it’s likely that you will need to allow things to heal up before you try again. As such, a very gradual buildup is almost a requirement for true barefoot running.

On the other hand, barefoot-style shoes prevent the friction that can damage the plantar surfaces. Thus, it is easier to do too much too soon because the skin does not act as a limiter, and if you don’t allow time for musculoskeletal adaptation to occur, a more serious injury than a blister is quite possible. This is why an extremely gradual adaption is so critical during a minimalist transition – you need to maintain immense self-discipline to avoid doing too much too soon.

Assuming that all of the 109 individuals followed in this study were running truly barefoot, the results suggest that transition injuries for barefoot runners are in fact fairly uncommon (only 17% of the 109 runners reported one, and only half of those actually had to see a medical professional for their problem). The dreaded metatarsal stress fracture that we hear so much about – only a single case formally diagnosed among the 109 runners. Plantar fasciitis? Only 2 individuals. Not a single diagnosed case of Achilles tendinopathy. Only 4 instances of self-reported calf or Achilles pain. The most common injury reported was, as might be expected, blisters.

It should be emphasized that this study is based on survey data, and we know little about the sample or the exact methodology. I am a bit suspicious by the low incidence of self-reported calf pain, as well as the rarity of blistering, even if it was the most common injury. It is possible that if the study subjects were die-hard barefooters, they might be under-reporting injury incidence. But, given the dire reports of injury risk we sometimes hear from the medical community (almost all anecdotal by the way), one wonders what the truth is. It will be very interesting to read the full study if/when it comes out.

So, rather than go on, I though it might be more interesting to post a few questions relating to this study and barefoot running injury risk and see what you think (wild speculation is encouraged!):

1. Given the results of this study, do you think injury reports coming from the medical community about barefoot running transition injuries might be exaggerated?

2. Do you suspect most injuries (e.g., metatarsal stress fractures) reported by the medical community are happening to barefoot runners, or is the moniker “barefoot runner” being used too loosely to include runners in “barefoot-style” shoes like the Vibram Fivefingers.

3. Do you suspect that injuries are less likely in a true barefoot transition than in a transition to barefoot-style shoes?

4. Do you think that injuries might be under-reported in a study like this (e.g., does the low incidence of blisters or calf pain concern you when it comes to believing these results?).

Any and all thoughts are welcome!

Vibram Making Soles for “One-Fingered” Dog Shoes

2012-06-08T11:24:00.001-04:00

As we discuss in Chapter 1 of Tread Lightly, dogs and horses are among the few animals on the planet who can, under the right circumstances, compete with humans in a long distance foot/paw/hoof race. Interestingly enough, they are also among the only other animals who are on occasion found wearing shoes.

Vibram led the early charge toward “barefoot-style” human footwear with it’s Fivefingers line of foot-glove-like shoes. They have gone on to also provide soles for minimalist shoes produced by other footwear manufacturers such as Merrell and New Balance. It was only a matter of time before they realized the potential to exploit the wide-open non-Homo sapiens market.

Enter the Ruffwear Bark’n Boots Grip Trex. Ruffwear states that the “Grip Trex dog boots set the standard in paw wear for dogs who hike, bike, run, or explore the great outdoors with their humans.” And, these canine boots sport a Vibram sole (minus claw-pockets).

Once your dog has it’s little boots on, its ready to run, just like the pooch in the video below!

I do have to admit though, that’s a fine looking pair of shoes, and if they made them in my size, I might even be tempted to give them a go! As for my dogs, aside from maybe when the roads are covered in salt in the winter, I think they’re probably just fine going bare.

Pete Talks Persistence Hunting and Footwear With the Geeks In Running Shoes Podcast

2012-06-07T20:57:00.001-04:00

Pete recently recorded an interview about Tread Lightly with Jason Kehl and Ray King over at the Geeks in Running Shoes podcast. In addition to chatting about persistence hunting and footwear, they also discussed running funks and how to get out of them. You can check out the details and find download links for the interview here:

http://geeksinrunningshoes.com/2012/06/04/episode-73-tread-lightly/

Botox Injections for High-Heeled Comfort: When Fashion Trumps Footwear Function!

2012-06-05T13:27:00.001-04:00

Français : Escarpin ouvert "peep toe" à plateforme, en cuir noir verni, modèle "Lady Peep", marque Christian Louboutin, talon 150mm (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the “characters” who appears in Chapter 3 of Tread Lightly is a chap named Jay Bedford Leno. In his 1885 treatise titled The Art of Boot and Shoemaking, A Practical Handbook,” Leno blames “the stupid mandates of all-powerful fashion” for playing a major role in the deforming nature of shoe designs of his time.

Well, it appears that little has changed, and in fact some have taken things to an entirely new level. Witness this article in the British tabloid “The Sun,” in which a woman named Charlotte Glen discusses how she has resorted to having Botox injections into her feet, as well as implantation of “dermal fillers” to add built in cushion to her soles. Why, you might ask? Well, quite obviously so she can all day and night in one of 40 pairs of stilettos. Says Ms. Glen: “Wearing heels for 16 years had left my feet in agony. But now I have had the Loub job, I can wear heels of any height without feeling a thing. It’s given me unbelievable stiletto stamina.” Ms. Glen rationalizes her decision thusly:

“People reading this will think the procedure is vanity-based but it isn’t. I need to look great for work and I wear heels all day. If you have to wear glasses all day, but decide to get contacts so people can’t see them, it’s the same thing. Millions of women around the world, I am sure, will agree.”

We’re not so sure we do agree, but then again, as Jay Bedford Leno said over 100 years ago, fashion can be a pretty powerful force.

To read the full article on the high-heel Botox procedure, click here.

For a more sensible take on this topic, here’s a video featuring Australian podiatrist Brendan Brown:

Tread Lightly: Chapter Resources

2012-06-04T22:56:00.001-04:00

Click on the links below to view resource pages for each chapter in Tread Lightly. You will find links to references, related blog posts, relevant articles, videos and more!

Tread Lightly: About the Authors

2012-06-04T22:47:00.001-04:00

Tread Lightly is co-authored by Dr. Peter Larson, who resides in New Hampshire, and Bill Katovsky, who resides in California. Below are more details on each author:

Peter Larson is a biology professor at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH where he teaches Anatomy & Physiology, Exercise Physiology, Comparative Anatomy, and Developmental Biology. He has recently been conducting research on the biomechanics of distance running in road races with his undergraduate students.

Pete is also a fanatical runner with a somewhat unhealthy fascination with running shoes (or at least his wife thinks so!). He began running seriously in 2007 to get himself back in shape after letting his health go following the birth of his first two children. He has since completed 8 marathons, including the 2011 Boston Marathon, which he ran as an official qualifier (though he crashed hard on Heartbreak Hill...).

In addition to his academic pursuits, Pete authors the Runblogger blog where he writes about running science, running gear, and his personal experience as a runner.

Bill Katovsky is editor, author, and coauthor of several books, including Embedded: the Media at War in Iraq, which won Harvard’s Goldsmith Book Prize, Bike for Life, and Return to Fitness. Bill is founder of Tri-Athlete Magazine, and has completed the Hawaii Ironman twice. He is editor of 1,001 Pearls of Runners' Wisdom: Advice and Inspiration for the Open Road, as well as co-founder of the Natural Running Center. Bill's personal blog, Zero-Drop.com, is an entertaining and informative look at all aspects of footwear and fitness culture.

Chapter 9 – Turning the Clock Back on Nutrition

2012-06-04T22:03:00.001-04:00

Chapter 9 of Tread Lightly examines nutrition and how it can affect a runner’s health, form, and efficiency. In this chapter we examine:

Hunter-gatherer nutrition
Nutritional habits of elite runners
The benefits of whole foods
How excess body weight can affect form and running economy
The role of body fat distribution

Useful ancillary resources for Chapter 9 include:

Chapter 8 – The Running Stride and Running Form

2012-06-03T17:25:00.001-04:00

Chapter 8 of Tread Lightly examines aspects of running form other than foot strike. In particular we focus on stride length and why we feel that to avoid overstriding might be the single best piece of advice that we can give runners when it comes to running form. In this chapter we examine:

How running form changes in barefoot runners
The components of the running stride
Historical viewpoints on optimal stride length
What is overstriding?
What modern science tells us about how stride length relates to joint loading
Relationship between stride length and running efficiency
Running form above the legs

Useful ancillary resources for Chapter 8 include:

Chapter 7 – Foot Strike in Running

2012-06-02T14:59:00.001-04:00

Chapter 7 of Tread Lightly examines the the topic of how the foot strikes the ground in running (heel vs. midfoot vs. forefoot), and whether one type of foot strike might be considered the “best” option for runners. In this chapter we examine:

The various types of running foot strikes
Historical advice on “optimal” foot strike
What research shows about how common each foot strike type is among runners
The affect of footwear (or lack thereof) on foot strike type
The role of learning and acclimation in relation to running form change
How foot strike type relates to the forces applied to the foot and leg in running
The relationship between foot strike type and running injuries

Useful ancillary resources for Chapter 7 include:

Chapter 6 – Pronate Nation

2012-06-01T12:21:00.001-04:00

Chapter 6 of Tread Lightly examines the modern running shoe fitting process and the science (or lack thereof) behind assigning shoes based on pronation control and/or arch height . In this chapter we examine:

How the shoe fitting process works in a typical shoe store
Why pronation should not be feared
The effectiveness of pronation control devices in shoes
Why static arch height might be a useless criterion upon which to base shoe choice
Better approaches to shoe fitting
Why the old model of shoe fitting may be disappearing

Useful ancillary resources for Chapter 6 include:

Chapter 5 – The Recreational Runner

2012-06-01T12:02:00.001-04:00

Chapter 5 of Tread Lightly examines the rise of the recreational runner. In this chapter we examine:

Barefoot running among elites in the 1950’s and 1960’s
The origins of the first “running boom”
Bill Bowerman’s “Jogging” book
The influence of Dr. George Sheehan
The recent running footwear “arms race”
How we arrived at the modern running shoe
What is a “minimalist” running shoe?

Useful ancillary resources for Chapter 5 include:

Links to references cited in Chapter 5

Tread Lightly Chapter 4 – History of Running Shoes

2012-06-01T11:27:00.001-04:00

Chapter 4 of Tread Lightly examines the history of running shoes. In this chapter we examine:

Ancient footwear
Historical trends in footwear design and fashion
The rise of the running shoe
Bill Bowerman, his waffle iron, and the origin of Nike
Native American running and footwear

Useful ancillary resources for this chapter include:

Tread Lightly: Author Interviews and Press

2012-05-30T11:27:00.001-04:00

Below are a selection of author interviews and press for the book Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear, and the Quest for Injury Free Running:

Tread Lightly Book Reviews

2012-05-30T11:18:00.001-04:00

Reviews for Tread Lightly are starting to roll in – here are some examples of what people are saying:

From Dr. Casey Kerrigan, former Chair of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the University of Virginia, author of 90+ scientific articles on human locomotion and gait, and current owner of OESH Footwear:

“Among things like running form and nutrition, the book debunks, in a nice systematic way, a number of long-held myths about traditional running shoe design. Pete, the scientist, runner and creator of the most popular blog on running, Runblogger.com, explains a number of findings from my studies on gait and footwear. He also highlights the continued work of my friend and former employee, Jay Dicharry, P.T., who, since I left, now runs the gait laboratory at the University of Virginia, which includes Jay’s now famous Speed Clinic.

The book reviews a number of scientific studies that elucidate the major flaws in traditional athletic shoe design; specifically foam cushioning and technologies that attempt to “control pronation.” In fact, there is an entire chapter, aptly titled “A pronation nation,” explaining how the long-held tradition of attempting to block pronation with arch supports and medial supports in shoes is not only ineffective, but in fact may be detrimental. For example, a study I did (with Jay Dicharry and others) in 2007 showed that even a tiny off-the-shelf arch cushion increases knee joint torque associated with knee osteoarthritis. The chapter supports what I’ve always said: we ALL pronate and for good reason – to protect our joints upward from the foot.”

Read Casey Kerrigan’s full review.

From Jason Robillard, author of The Barefoot Running Book and Barefoot Running University:

“The topics they discuss are the exact same topics I’ve been discussing with running store employees and podiatrists… and we’re closing in on some degree of agreement on some fundamental elements of running form. This book very well could be the book that triggers the tipping point I talk about frequently. It’s the single most sensible treatise on running form I’ve ever read.

This book should be required reading for anyone involved in the running industry, including:

Novice runners

Experienced runners

Coaches

Researchers

Medical professionals

Shoe designers

Shoe marketers

Shoe distributors

Retail shoe store owners, managers, and employees

Parents

That’s right. If you’re on this list, order this book today. It is THAT important to furthering our understanding of what it means to reduce running injuries. The book was so intriguing, I woke up at 3 am the last two mornings to complete it despite recovering from Sunday’s 50 miler and subsequent 18 hour car ride back to Michigan.”

Link to Jason’s full review.

From Blaise Dubois, physiotherapist at Laval University in Quebec, Canada, consultant for the Canadian National Track and Field Team, and head of The Running Clinic website.

“Without being a health professional, his (Pete’s) passion for running brought him to write with impressive accuracy. His intelligence, his thinking ability and his scientific rigor make him one of the best critics I know about the prevention of running injuries. Therefore, I strongly recommend his book called "Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear, and the Quest for Injury-Free Running", which I consider as the best book of the year! For beginners or experts, this book is a must-read. Loaded with knowledge, but being readable at the same time, it is definitely the one to buy in 2012!”

From Mike LaChapelle of How 2 Run Fast:

“Tread Lightly is well-written and very thoroughly researched. It will appeal to runners who are looking for an in-depth look at the history of running and running shoes, as well as a glimpse into its future.”

Read Mike’s full review here.

Tread Lightly Book Excerpts

2012-05-30T10:58:00.001-04:00

We have published a number of excerpts from Tread Lightly to provide a feel for the type of content that we cover. Here are links to those excerpts currently available on-line:

Chapter 2 excerpt: The Changing Nature of Running Injuries in the 1970's
Chapter 4 excerpt: Bill Bowerman, His Wife’s Waffle Iron, Nike’s Early Days and Birth of the Modern Running Shoe
Chapter 5 excerpt: Barefoot Running in the Early 60s — Excerpt from New Book “Tread Lightly”
Chapter 7 excerpt: Facts on Foot Strike: Excerpt Published in the June 2012 issue of Running Times
Chapter 8 excerpt: Should You Emulate the Running Form of Elites

The Barefoot Professor: Nature Interviews Dr. Daniel Lieberman About His Barefoot Running Study

2012-05-30T10:36:00.001-04:00

Below is an interview that the scientific journal Nature posted in conjunction with the release of Dr. Daniel Lieberman’s barefoot running study:

Slow Motion Videos of Habitually Barefoot and Recently Shod Kenyan Runners

2012-05-30T10:31:00.001-04:00

Below are slow motion videos of Kenyan runners shot by Dr. Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University demonstrating some of the patterns discussed in Chapters 3, 7 and 8 of Tread Lightly.

First is a barefoot adolescent Kenyan who has never worn shoes. This is the video described at the opening of Chapter 8. Note the forefoot contact and the lack of excessive forward extension of the leg upon landing (i.e., not overstriding).

Next is an elite Kenyan running barefoot. This individual grew up barefoot, but started wearing shoes later in life.

Finally, here is an elite Kenyan running in shoes. This individual grew up barefoot, but started wearing shoes later in life.

Tread Lightly Chapter 3 – Barefoot Running

2012-05-30T10:15:00.001-04:00

Chapter 3 of Tread Lightly examines the topic of barefoot running. In this chapter we examine:

Why barefoot running will never be the norm
The recent barefoot running debate
How barefoot running affects form
Why barefoot running injuries happen
Risks and rewards of barefoot running
How footwear can alter foot and leg anatomy
Historical viewpoints on the dangers of ill-fitting shoes
The relationship between surface hardness and limb stiffness

Useful ancillary resources for this chapter include:

Tread Lightly Chapter 2 - Running Injuries

2012-05-30T10:05:00.001-04:00

Chapter 2 of Tread Lightly examines the topic of running injuries. In this chapter we examine:

Historical injury patterns among runners
Factors associated with increased injury risk
The question of why injury rates have remained steady and high for decades
The role of repetitive stress as the root cause of most common running injuries
Strategies to reduce repetitive stress to the running body

Useful ancillary resources for this chapter include:

Links to references cited in Chapter 2
Runblogger post on repetitive overuse injuries
Blaise Dubois podcasts discussing treatment of running injuries