How should we walk ?

[nck]

About this link you shared, good one too: https://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/the-real-function-of-the-big-toe I think what the author is saying is "what is desirable" in an athlete's foot structure to avoid damage such as ACL (as one example). I never had ACL problems when I ran high miles each week...40 on average over a very long period of time, all barefoot.

True, but I think what really matters is having good stability in the feet. If you can form a good tripod with your feet you should be safe, but if not maybe increasing that interdigit space helps.

 

[nck]

I think the book is worth it if you want to learn a more "gentle" way to walk. I am not sure if you need that to walk injury free. Personally, I like the way forefoot walking feels, but I do walk heel first, too. It all depends on your walking speed, the ground, and how much load you carry, as well as your energy and focus. I would certainly recommend the book to anybody interested in the topic of how we walk, but I don't think you need it to walk injury free. It gives you more options and insight.

The idea that you need to "relearn" how to walk is something I would reserve for serious medical rehabilitation training. I am not sure it applies to healthy adults. Of course you can learn to walk more efficiently, more gentle, more whatever, but do you need to relearn walking as a healthy adult to stay injury free? I would doubt that.

I like to learn effective ways to move. The book helps with that, for walking. Walking in itself is a very safe activity with a low risk of injury. Any amount of relearning will probably not lower that injury risk significantly for healthy adults.

Thank you. I think I'm in that point of where i need "medical rehabilitation training". I mean, I can walk from A to B but probably as already happened to me in a two weeks hike I ended with a fracture in one met and tofp in the other one. I think that with a proper walking technique and a good aligned overall body that shouldn't happen. And now after being almost without moving for two months it kind of gets worse.

Also, I don't agree that people in general are "safe walking" and injury free. But due to having a low intensity (1) and in general people walk very little (2) the problems associated with a bad technique don't show up in a really long time. For example walking with the feet pointing 45º outward, the head hanging in front of you, hips forward, not using the gluts at all and falling forward over the quads... I don't know if it's that well known in other countries, but we have in Spain the The Way of Saint James coming from over all Europe. You can hike as many km as you want during many days, and in general it doesn't have any kind of technical difficulty but a huge amount of people get injured, apart from blisters, is really common to see knee problems, ankle problems, tendonitis, etc... And it's just walking.

If you know or learn about this cues you can correct it and walk much safer, properly aligned and with each muscle taking care of what it should. You may have to be constantly thinking about it at beginning, but then it goes automatic when your muscles and tissues have adapted. And also I think this applies to most of the sports where you do something repeatedly. For example, you go to the gym and do barbell squats, if you are properly aligned even going beyond what you can lift you will just not be able to lift it or in an extreme case tear or brake a muscle due to the tension. But you won't get joint problems it you are properly aligned and structurally firm.

I will give it a try. I ordered the book.

 

[Gordon]

That's a really interesting point. Do you think this applies to walking? Landing with a bigger angle due to a longer stride or a straight leg, could make the tibialis muscle work to pull forward and therefore contribute to having shin splits because that load is too much for the muscle.

I don't think so, because the forces are so much higher in running, and because the energetics are completely different. I believe that the problems so many folks have with running well is caused by running like they walk when they walk just fine. Now if the question is whether or not it's possible to overstride when walking, then yes, it's possible, just look at racewalkers. Common? No

 

[Gordon]

Here's description of releasing forward to walk ... http://www.alexandertechnique-running.com/weight-transfer-exercise/

 

[nck]

I don't think so, because the forces are so much higher in running, and because the energetics are completely different. I believe that the problems so many folks have with running well is caused by running like they walk when they walk just fine. Now if the question is whether or not it's possible to overstride when walking, then yes, it's possible, just look at racewalkers. Common? No

I've been googling about it and in some places they suggest that the knees should also be bent at landing while walking. That would cause a smaller angle in the ankle as you said:
https://gokhalemethod.com/blog/52812

I've been trying a little bit walking around home doing that, and I do feel that I land in a softer way and I don't have so much pressure in the middle of the 2-4 metatarsal heads. I still have to think a little bit about pressing with the big toe during toe off to release pressure there though.

Here's description of releasing forward to walk ... http://www.alexandertechnique-running.com/weight-transfer-exercise/

Thank you, I'll study it a little bit more, because at first glance I don't see exactly what he means

 

[nck]

Again I find contradictions , here she says we should land with a straight knee:
https://nutritiousmovement.com/walking-or-bouncing/

 

[Gordon]

I've been googling about it and in some places they suggest that the knees should also be bent at landing while walking.

Yes. But there's a big difference between locking out your leading leg and having a soft knee with a nearly straight leg. Locking out your lead leg is bad and generally leads to banging your heel down. Doing a Groucho Marx walk is bad. I don't know whether it's bad for you, but it's darned tiring. A soft knee allows you to be ready to absorb shock if needed while still being efficient.

 

[Gordon]

Again I find contradictions , here she says we should land with a straight knee:

Everybody has an opinion. Especially me. Since she gets the physics wrong right off the bat in that hand-drawn diagram, I wouldn't weight hers that much. Lieberman got it right in his paper, you sort of pole vault over your leg, so your COM rises at mid stance and then drops with gravity assisting you to fall forward. She is right that too much knee bending and straightening is inefficient. When I walk I land on a soft knee which straightens into toe off. It's saved me some teeth a time or two when I walked off a step or a curb in the dark. I do think that with extra pelvic motion, you could pull off the locked out knee thing on smooth flat pavement, but things are going to get ugly fast if you find yourself on a natural surface. Thinking about it, the locked out knee with lots of hip motion is exactly what race walkers do ... so it is very efficient. I'd argue that it's also unnatural.

 

[nck]

Yes. But there's a big difference between locking out your leading leg and having a soft knee with a nearly straight leg. Locking out your lead leg is bad and generally leads to banging your heel down. Doing a Groucho Marx walk is bad. I don't know whether it's bad for you, but it's darned tiring. A soft knee allows you to be ready to absorb shock if needed while still being efficient.

I found the book from that websites (gokhale) to take a quick look and she actually says the knee should land bent. But she also mentions many things which i'm not sure that they are correct or at least I have never read about them like:
-We should walk with 5-15 degrees of rotation in the foot.
-We should stay more time on the heel and walk by pulling the leg with one glut forward, land with bent knee, straighten that leg while pulling the other leg again with the glut and so on...
-We should not have any arm swing or very little.
-We should walk with our footprint touching the same line, and not wider, something like this:

Everybody has an opinion. Especially me. Since she gets the physics wrong right off the bat in that hand-drawn diagram, I wouldn't weight hers that much. Lieberman got it right in his paper, you sort of pole vault over your leg, so your COM rises at mid stance and then drops with gravity assisting you to fall forward. She is right that too much knee bending and straightening is inefficient. When I walk I land on a soft knee which straightens into toe off. It's saved me some teeth a time or two when I walked off a step or a curb in the dark. I do think that with extra pelvic motion, you could pull off the locked out knee thing on smooth flat pavement, but things are going to get ugly fast if you find yourself on a natural surface. Thinking about it, the locked out knee with lots of hip motion is exactly what race walkers do ... so it is very efficient. I'd argue that it's also unnatural.

I really used to like and trust Katy Bowman's blog, it usually was quiet convincing from a biomechanical point of view but simplified for all the people. I also really like her books.

Great point, so maybe the key is just having a straight knee soft enought so that it can easily be bent in case you fall or step into something unexpected?

There is a comment in the link I put in the first post where someone comments about what you say:

I have some comments today, Katy. An efficient runner does not bob as much as you are suggesting. Inevitably they will bob slightly more than a walker but heel/toe runners are certainly inclined to bob a lot. The critical attitude of the spine is to remain lengthened not vertically plumb. To lean – from the ankles – is efficient and does use gravity rather than inefficient muscular pushing/pulling power (again this is characteristic of heel/toe runners). Take a look at top sprinters – their heels never touch the ground. Take a look at Kenyan and other barefoot runners – their heel barely caresses the ground. Take a look at Rugby and other running field sports as they attempt to weave through the opposition – they could not do this if their spine were plumb.

In walking the heel certainly contacts the ground first. But as the weight is transferred forward, the foot quickly flattens. Again, it is efficient to let gravity do the work and a push-off should rarely be necessary on even ground. Take a look at indigenous peoples walking – never mind the rest of us barefooters – to see this in action. Lastly do have a look at the posetech.com site where all this stuff is discussed in a very scientific fashion.

Love your work and your great humour. Keep it up!

And the answer:

Rob – I should have put *not to scale* on my drawing. And, you see the ping-pong ball action and think *It’s not that much!” but you don’t realize (cuz I didn’t write it) that the sum total of joint deformation at the ankle, knee, & hip is what I am drawing – not the height of the head above the ground
And, I agree with your entire post, but here is the main difference. You, and the researchers who are working on current gait and running studies use the term efficiency to mean energy conservation during the period of the run. This is why many athletes use gravity — as an aid to perform, in the moment, beyond their internal mechanical output. I use the term efficiency to mean the amount of energy expended over the entire period of running and recovery over a lifetime. Leaning forward will help you perform better in the moment, but increases, (significantly) the total forces in the knees, feet, and hips. The increased loads of a non-vertical mass during of acceleration and deceleration require much more use of the passive tissues in the body – the stuff that wears out because muscle is pulled out of the game in these *efficient athletic* positions. Recovery also takes energy, and the recovery of running is much greater than the recovery of walking. Walking is much more efficient than running on the bigger scale.
An argument is only valid in the parameters that the variables are defined. This is a blog about natural movement for an injury and disease-free life, not a blog on fitness. Fitness and movement are two different things. For a lifetime of efficient movement, Newtonian physics, geometry, and biological science will present the most valid arguments. I am well-versed in gait research. It’s what biomechanists do I’ve read and worked with all research available, years and years before the barefoot crew started looking into gait and it is all short-term performance related and has nothing to do with health or wellness.

And, P.S. I’m not even going to talk about sprinting and how that’s entirely different (and has a different goal) than either walking or running. When you have a lot of people not well-trained in mechanical variables putting together blog posts and books on *natural* movement, it gets a little less valid. There’s a lot of words that have scientific and semantic definitions that are being redefined by pop-use — even in research. But it’s cool, man. Everyone is trying to do stuff with good intentions!

Thanks for your post. Love to have you on the blog!

I also found this comment about it really interesting:

If the height of your pelvis doesn’t change then there is nothing to absorb, so no need to bend. And, the next level is this: The straight-legged acceptance of weight is how your body maintains your bone density at the hips. Your skeleton is not “weight-bearing” if you dampen the force by bending the knees. Bone density bonus

And a video about going upward or downward:

 

[Gordon]

Lot of stuff to address at once. I'll take a swing at some of them.

Your feet should point whichever way they point, what's important is that your knees point straight ahead. Knees are hinges and don't handle twisting forces gracefully. Depending on the amount of twist in your lower leg bones, your feet should point anywhere from slightly inward to somewhat outward.

Yes, the knee is only slightly bent, just in case. It actually straightens under load which puts more force on the hip during mid stance than walking with a locked leg, which refutes the bone density argument(which I'm not buying without some data - it sounds like a real stretch). Your knee not being locked doesn't mean that it flexes. Unless you step into an unseen hole, in which case it does, saving your ass in the process.

The video. Erm. Um. I had a real problem when she said to power your uphill walk by using your calves. Yikes. If you actually do that, you're going to be crippled with cramps in short order. The glutes power uphill walking through hip extension much as they power running. The gastrocs(the calf muscle pulling on the heel) are biarticular muscles that don't lengthen or shorten much during a stride cycle. All they do is transfer power from the glutes to the feet. Well, from the femur to the talus. The glutes drive the femur. She is right that most people use their quads too much. But the answer is to use the glutes instead. In addition, really.

Going downhill. Yes, your pelvis rocks. And your knees are bent. And your quads take a beating. I don't understand why she doesn't talk about the pelvis rocking during uphill walking. The gluteus medius on your stance side raises the opposite side of your pelvis as you extend your hip. That happens on flat ground, too. Seriously, everything moves together, your spine, your hips, your legs, your arms. Heck, even your neck and head. Focusing on one or two body parts and trying to force them into a specific pattern can lead to more problems elsewhere ... our bodies are one piece and everything affects everything else. Piecemeal change only works if you're very observant about all the other things that change as you make your tweaks. Most people aren't that observant. A classic example is changing foot strike. You can land on your forefoot while continuing to over stride by changing how you hold your foot. Metatarsal stress fractures soon follow. You fix how your foot lands by changing things other than your foot, like your posture, or how you use your hips. All you do with your feet is ... nothing. You just let them flop around as they will. By the same token, all you really need to do to go uphill(or downhill) well is to lengthen your spine(including your neck) and widen your shoulders. Get your body in the right position and everything else will follow gracefully.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

True, but I think what really matters is having good stability in the feet. If you can form a good tripod with your feet you should be safe, but if not maybe increasing that interdigit space helps.

I've never been able to increase that space no matter the many years of barefooting.

 

[nck]

Lot of stuff to address at once. I'll take a swing at some of them.

Your feet should point whichever way they point, what's important is that your knees point straight ahead. Knees are hinges and don't handle twisting forces gracefully. Depending on the amount of twist in your lower leg bones, your feet should point anywhere from slightly inward to somewhat outward.

Yes, the knee is only slightly bent, just in case. It actually straightens under load which puts more force on the hip during mid stance than walking with a locked leg, which refutes the bone density argument(which I'm not buying without some data - it sounds like a real stretch). Your knee not being locked doesn't mean that it flexes. Unless you step into an unseen hole, in which case it does, saving your ass in the process.

The video. Erm. Um. I had a real problem when she said to power your uphill walk by using your calves. Yikes. If you actually do that, you're going to be crippled with cramps in short order. The glutes power uphill walking through hip extension much as they power running. The gastrocs(the calf muscle pulling on the heel) are biarticular muscles that don't lengthen or shorten much during a stride cycle. All they do is transfer power from the glutes to the feet. Well, from the femur to the talus. The glutes drive the femur. She is right that most people use their quads too much. But the answer is to use the glutes instead. In addition, really.

Going downhill. Yes, your pelvis rocks. And your knees are bent. And your quads take a beating. I don't understand why she doesn't talk about the pelvis rocking during uphill walking. The gluteus medius on your stance side raises the opposite side of your pelvis as you extend your hip. That happens on flat ground, too. Seriously, everything moves together, your spine, your hips, your legs, your arms. Heck, even your neck and head. Focusing on one or two body parts and trying to force them into a specific pattern can lead to more problems elsewhere ... our bodies are one piece and everything affects everything else. Piecemeal change only works if you're very observant about all the other things that change as you make your tweaks. Most people aren't that observant. A classic example is changing foot strike. You can land on your forefoot while continuing to over stride by changing how you hold your foot. Metatarsal stress fractures soon follow. You fix how your foot lands by changing things other than your foot, like your posture, or how you use your hips. All you do with your feet is ... nothing. You just let them flop around as they will. By the same token, all you really need to do to go uphill(or downhill) well is to lengthen your spine(including your neck) and widen your shoulders. Get your body in the right position and everything else will follow gracefully.

Thank you.

-You say the rotation could be in many directions, but wouldn't this make in the long term that the bones of the toes rotate toward that direction? I totally agree that the rotation of the knee is more important but I think the rotation of the knee is influenced by the strength and balance between the gluts, lateral hip muscles and adductors, and not so much but what the ankle is doing. For example, by having the toes pointing forward and parallel, if you do a screwing motion with your hips without moving the feet you can adjust the knee to have it perfectly aligned.

-I agree completely with going up hill, I must say that's the easiest way of walking for me, compared to going downhill/downstairs, as focusing on the gluts and an upright posture is enough.


-Another thing I don't see anyone talking is about what do the toes during landing. I've seen that if I dorsiflex the big toe (point it upward) the 1st met head goes down first and maybe less pressure is applied to the second metatarsal (having mortons foot). But I don't know if it's a good idea, I don't know where I read that dorsifleixon during landing puts more stress in the metatarsal heads and would be bad, but I don't know if it was refering to ankle dorsiflexion, toes, both...
In this photo they do the opposite:

 

[Gordon]

Some people have what's called tibial torsion, where the foot and knee don't point in the same direction. I don't know what percentage, sorry. I'd expect to see that most people have a slight external rotation, leading to recommendations like "Your feet should angle out at 10-15 degrees." Since neither your ankle or your knee rotate well, you won't be able to change that angle by rotating your hip. What happens instead is that your ankle rolls and your foot makes the adjustment by and pronating or supinating, allowing the knee some motion. I think that you really don't want to be landing a running stride on a foot and ankle that aren't neutrally positioned. You probably can for a while, we do run well over rough ground after all, but mile after mile? Sounds like a really bad idea.

 

[nck]

Can anyone tell me what's the function of the toes while walking?

I though they were used to stabilise the whole body but after observing some days my own foot I realized I get pain in the 2nd -3rd met heads when both of those toes are pushing against the floor or gripping it and it seems like they are stressed trying to keep balance in the whole foot.

So is that their job and they are just week or should the foot be in balance without the action of the toes and the toes are trying to compensate that problem?

 

[Jon from PDX]

I thought I’d resurrect this thread to toss out an observation for the consideration and criticism of more experienced barefooters:

The single largest variable for me is whether the foot muscles are recruited before footfall. I’ve tried a full range of toe- to heel-landing, which seems mostly dictated by stride length (unless actively intending a particular footfall); inversion and eversion, which has a large effect on pronation and consequent knee tracking but not on short-term comfort; hip recruitment (gluteus medialis?) (to lift the opposite, swing-phase leg), which substantially affects vertical oscillation and subjective smoothness; emphasis on driving with the glutes or the quads (the glutes are better, uh, in every way, but the quads are still somehow habitual, perhaps related to my mild scoliosis); and several forms of “barefoot” (unshod, 4mm sandal, 5.5mm shoe). I’m currently working through some tendinopathy, so my feet seem particularly hypersensitive, but was thinking about this before my TMTS injury. Regardless of all of those variables, if my feet land in an engaged state, the rest of my body seems to follow in a comfortable manner, but one thing or another seems to fall apart, as if I’m exhausted and my practiced gait is faltering, if my feet are relaxed when they contact the ground.

If I gently activate my feet before footfall and use my glutes to soften the strike, my walking gait feels ideal. My stride shortens, my cadence climbs, I feel like I’m going faster than my usual 3ish miles per hour but using less effort than an idle stroll, and I need to consciously back off to keep from breaking into a jog (around a cadence of 115 or so — though I’m not sure how much I trust my pedometer on that). It feels like I could keep up that kind of walking forever, but then eventually I get distracted and revert into my habitual gait.

Now, I am a true novice. My background includes walking a lot, perhaps averaging 10 miles a day in shoes ranging from rock-like boots to bland zero-drop sneakers, but I’ve only been minimalist or unshod for maybe six weeks (and tried running for a week of that). I have zero running background as an adult. How my feet behave shod and mostly/actually unshod are definitely different, so I won’t be offended if everybody says this is nonsense. But I would appreciate anyone criticising my observations, my presentation of physiology and kinematics, or simply sharing their own observations, whether they agree with mine or not.

 

[Jon from PDX]

Can anyone tell me what's the function of the toes while walking?

I though they were used to stabilise the whole body but after observing some days my own foot I realized I get pain in the 2nd -3rd met heads when both of those toes are pushing against the floor or gripping it and it seems like they are stressed trying to keep balance in the whole foot.

So is that their job and they are just week or should the foot be in balance without the action of the toes and the toes are trying to compensate that problem?

I’m curious about this, too. The best answer I’ve found for myself is that the toes are great for shifting and spreading load. If I step on something uneven, my toes are great at lifting or falling to keep an even pressure level, avoiding an overload beneath the metatarsal heads and shifting the center of balance to better align with any discrepancy between where the center of gravity is and where I want it to be. If I step on something that hurts, my toes are able to quickly shift the load onto another part of the foot, side-to-side or front-to-back, or even jumping up and shifting weight to the other foot. In other words, I don’t think the toes are there to carry much of the normal static load, but rather are there to rapidly adjust dynamic balance.

Edit to add: none of this provides any function while wearing a stiff shoe. Huh. Maybe barefooting serves a purpose!?

(To test this hypothesis, I’d postulate that toe flexor muscle fibers are more likely to be fast twitch than in the muscles that attach to the metatarsals. That seems like something that might be straightforward to test in a university lab, but, alas, I’m long departed from that environment.)