"Conclusions: Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes."
"Running in racing flats offers no metabolic advantage over running barefoot."
You can state it either way. We'll have to wait until we can read the actual study to see what they actually showed.
They did run in racing flats in that study. Nike MayFly I believe.
I have not read the whole study, but the point seems to be:
having additional mass on the foot (as with a shoe) does incur some additional oxygen cost to the athlete. However.... apparently the shoe helps the runner in some way (impact absorption? reduced eccentric load to muscles? Keeps foot muscles stiffer/more energy efficient? Don't know...) because even with additional weight on the foot in the form of the shoe, there was no additional oxygen cost of shod running: " barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in VO2 or metabolic power."
And that is why an extremely light shoe that still provided the advantage that a shoe seems to provide would be the best of both worlds:
" A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ~3-4% lower V[spacing dot above]2 and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (p>0.05)."
And this is of course why runners run in extremely light racing shoes for races and NOT barefoot.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
And this is of course why runners run in extremely light racing shoes for races and NOT barefoot.
The average shoe has evolved and become so heavy and rigid that extremely light racing shoes should now be grouped with the minimalist offerings.
It would have been interesting to have compared the "average" shoe on the market to barefoot. Some 15 oz motion control monster versus barefoot.
It makes sense that a shoe offering a little protection but not restricting the foot's motion too much would be superior to barefoot. However, those aren't the two options being given to the average Joe walking into Dick's Sporting. They're more likely to walk out with a pair of Kayanos than Mayflies or Vibrams.
redux - Lace 'em up b'ys! wrote:
"Conclusions: Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes."
Yay redux is the winner! He gets all the cookies!
What does that mean? Am I am ass for posting this?
No, you're not an ass. How's that for a letsrun first!!
The average shoe on the market is NOT some 15 oz motion control shoe. Stop speaking in hyperbole.
Inf wrote:
No, you're not an ass. How's that for a letsrun first!!
Well, freaking second or third for sure!
I'm glad to see this study getting some attention. The Locomotion Lab at CU does really solid science. I wrote a blog post where I got to interview Dr. Kram, the lead researcher of this study. We were discussing Abebe Bikila's 1960 Olympic Marathon and he said, "I think Abebe Bikila would have won in Chuck Taylors." The who interview can be found here: http://www.flotrack.org/blog/41189
I'm glad to see this study getting some attention. The Locomotion Lab at CU does really solid science. I wrote a blog post where I got to interview Dr. Kram, the lead researcher of this study. We were discussing Abebe Bikila's 1960 Olympic Marathon and he said, "I think Abebe Bikila would have won in Chuck Taylors." The who interview can be found here: http://www.flotrack.org/blog/41189
I am not voting minimalism or shoes, but it would be nice to know(didnt look at the study) was this experiment done with people who ran barefoot or with minimalistic shoes normally? Couldnt taking a person who had never done this before cause a false result
I didn't think people ran barefoot for metabolic advantages. I thought it had to do more with natural footfall, building muscles in the feet and lower ankle, and overall more efficient form as the prevailing conjectures.
Fundamentally a flawed study:
All the people in the study are shoe wearing individuals.
fundamentally flawed reading:
Methods: 12 males with substantial barefoot running experience ran at 3.35 m/s with a mid-foot strike pattern on a motorized treadmill, both barefoot and in lightweight cushioned shoes (~150 g/shoe). In additional trials, we attached small lead strips to each foot/shoe (~150, ~300, ~450 g). For each condition, we measured subjects' rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production and calculated metabolic power.
Not trying to be an arse, but if barefoot offers the same metabolic advantage as lightweight, cushioned shoes, why would you "lace 'em up"? Wouldn't it make more sense to go barefoot, and save the shoe money?[quote]redux - Lace 'em up b'ys! wrote:
Unless I am misreading this -->> "A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ~3-4% lower V[spacing dot above]2 and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (p``0.05)
To me that says although shoes weigh more, they make it easier to run. I could be wrong though.
Would it be a better comparison to only compare the same runners with shoes and without shoes?
2 important things to note:
1. This study DID NOT look at barefoot runners. All runners had awkward socks on with things attached to them. This is NOT barefoot.
2. This study DID NOT look at experienced barefoot runners. 15 miles a week? Not experienced. If I said "experienced runners who are running 15 miles a week" letsrun would be all over me. 15 miles a week is nothing and doesn't make anyone an experienced anything.
Of course we shouldn't let things like accurate language get in the way of science. After all we already have the conclusion - running shoes are a must - now we just need to rig some horribly designed studies to prove it!
I don't think this is news to most experienced runners training to race.
Barefoot offers a way to improve foot and leg strength; helps you with your running form and proper foot landing; and feels great once you have the foot and leg strength.
But, it seems pointless to do it full-time if you are serious about setting race PBs, and it's not practical in some circumstances. A pair of light shoes with low or zero drop is your best bet.