Just wondering... wrote:
Hello, so basically we have been told that running barefoot is the best for your foot and developing all of the tiny muscles in it, but obviously if you run barefoot you can run into problems. Many years ago I ran barefoot around a school field and I stood on some kind of twig which then had to be removed and it didn't really go right for few weeks/months.
Given all of this (and I know it might sound a bit daft!) I was wondering if anyone had tried gluing any kind of grip to the bottom of their foot - a bit like a shoe without the upper, but where your foot can still move naturally.
I had thought of something similar to the sharkskin swimsuits.
Thoughts?
I've been running barefoot for 16 years. The bf in my username is short for barefoot. I would consider myself an expert on it, as I know very few people who have done as much barefoot running and for as long as I have. If you are serious there are various online barefoot running communities. Most people who get into barefoot running are not competitive athletes, although there are a few.
First let me address your title. "grip" is not really an issue unless you're doing a lot of lateral movement in a field sport like soccer, football, ultimate, etc, and maybe sprinting. For most endurance running, grip isn't an issue. In fact running without relying on a lot of grip probably makes you more efficient.
There are three other reasons a person would want to wear shoes as far as I know: (1) abrasion resistance, (2) puncture resistance, and (3) padding/structure.
(3) is something I can't really address. If you've been wearing shoes all your life and your foot is used to being in a certain position, trying to change that is going to cause problems. I have been running bf for a long time so I don't experience that any more and can't relate to someone who does. I actually experience the opposite. When I try to run in shoes I get pains I would have never predicted.
(1) The faster you run on pavement, abrasion is unavoidable, but for the majority of the running that you do, you have control over how abrasive your feet are on the ground. Running with a lot of abrasion is inefficient anyway because any energy not going into moving you in the direction you want to go is wasted. There are plenty of people who run marathons totally barefoot, and I have done a few myself. It isn't a matter of having tough skin. Even after 16 years of running barefoot my plantar skin is maybe a millimeter or two thicker. A millimeter or two of skin is not going to sustain you through 26 miles of running if you are running in such a way that is grinding the rubber off of your shoes. I have had issues with abrasion at times, usually with my second toe on the left side. For a while it was so bad that I taped that toe and still I would wear through the tape in about ten miles and rub the toe raw. I never found an adequate solution for that but it went away on its own. I have noticed that when I put on shoes, I tend to run more abrasively than barefoot, even after years of experience barefoot. I think sensitivity plays a big role there. Unfortunately there is a trade off between sensitivity and protection, just like with gloves. the more you protect your skin, the more clumsy you're going to get because you just can't feel what you're doing.
(2) Bare feet are just less puncture resistant than shoes. When running barefoot you have to be more particular about where you run. If you're going to run in a place with a lot of sharp rocks then just wear shoes. Most of the gimmicks I've seen for reducing puncture risk also reduce sensitivity which causes other problems like I mentioned above. It's a worthwhile trade off if you're in a place where you won't be able to run at all without protection. Some people feel like that is everywhere. I cannot really address that except to say that this is a major sense that develops just by doing it. Having a sense of where it's doable and what your limits are, and this is something you develop just like with any other physical training.