Why barefoot runners never win...a closed-minded view
- Thread starter Barefoot TJ
- Start date
Surely it's patently evident that it is more economical to run barefoot than to spend $150+ on training shoes. Even moreso when you attach $300 orthoses to control for the shod runners' wobbly gaits...
hahaha! you win
There is nothing like a false presupposition to base a theory/paper on!
Surely it's patently evident that it is more economical to run barefoot than to spend $150+ on training shoes. Even moreso when you attach $300 orthoses to control for the shod runners' wobbly gaits...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Sigh!
They wern't barefoot, they were wearing socks and lead weights!! I wonder if those socks had as good traction as rubber soles. It would seem that they would slip on the belt and waste energy. Why wear socks for hygiene? Do they wear cotton gloves to turn the door knobs?
I posted this experiment before, but it is worth repeating. You can find out for your self which is more efficient shod or BF.
All you need is a heart rate moniter and quarter mile track.
Your heart rate is all you need to measure the effort.
Pick a pulse number. (I used 140)
Do a warm up run about a mile. With or without shoes.
Run two laps maintaining your chosen pulse rate. Note the time.
Switch to shod or BF. do a warm up lap (because you just took a break to put on shoes)
Run two laps maintaining your chosen pulse rate. Note the time.
I would do at least four repetitions switching from shod to BF and noting the time.
Average the BF times.
Average the shod times.
Which is faster?
For me the difference was about twelve seconds faster BF.
I ran a mile race and beat my shod time by 14 seconds.
I cannot say that my 5k times are faster BF, I think I am still being cautious running in crowds on the road.
I have noticied that when I do a group run and take my shoes off after a few miles I automatically speed up
I do believe BF is more efficient under good conditions.
I posted this experiment before, but it is worth repeating. You can find out for your self which is more efficient shod or BF.
All you need is a heart rate moniter and quarter mile track.
Your heart rate is all you need to measure the effort.
Pick a pulse number. (I used 140)
Do a warm up run about a mile. With or without shoes.
Run two laps maintaining your chosen pulse rate. Note the time.
Switch to shod or BF. do a warm up lap (because you just took a break to put on shoes)
Run two laps maintaining your chosen pulse rate. Note the time.
I would do at least four repetitions switching from shod to BF and noting the time.
Average the BF times.
Average the shod times.
Which is faster?
For me the difference was about twelve seconds faster BF.
I ran a mile race and beat my shod time by 14 seconds.
I cannot say that my 5k times are faster BF, I think I am still being cautious running in crowds on the road.
I have noticied that when I do a group run and take my shoes off after a few miles I automatically speed up
I do believe BF is more efficient under good conditions.
Lots of things will make you go faster--shoes, coffee, EPO, bikes, cars, planes . . . So?
Maybe they should have a 'natural' category at races, like they do in bodybuilding contests and celebrity gossip, akin to the age and sex divisions/brackets already in place.
But in any case, as S Cedastic and others have pointed out, that is one of the stupidest studies I've ever read about.
Here's a truer measure: get a habitually shod runner and a habitually barefoot runner to compete in a race. Then tell the shoddie to take off their shoes, and tell the barefooter to put some on. Then tell the shoddie they can have a new pair of shoes if they can better their individual time in the first race, and tell the barefooter they can have a new pair of socks with lead weights if they can better their individual time in the first race. Then repeat this with five other pairs of shod/barefoot runners so that we have a pseudo-scientifically valid sample size. If the shoddies improve the most, on average, over their shod times, it proves that barefoot running is faster. If the barefoot runners improve the most, on average, over their bare times, it would confirm the widespread suspicion that barefoot runners are crazy. Who would want to wear socks with lead weights?
Maybe they should have a 'natural' category at races, like they do in bodybuilding contests and celebrity gossip, akin to the age and sex divisions/brackets already in place.
But in any case, as S Cedastic and others have pointed out, that is one of the stupidest studies I've ever read about.
Here's a truer measure: get a habitually shod runner and a habitually barefoot runner to compete in a race. Then tell the shoddie to take off their shoes, and tell the barefooter to put some on. Then tell the shoddie they can have a new pair of shoes if they can better their individual time in the first race, and tell the barefooter they can have a new pair of socks with lead weights if they can better their individual time in the first race. Then repeat this with five other pairs of shod/barefoot runners so that we have a pseudo-scientifically valid sample size. If the shoddies improve the most, on average, over their shod times, it proves that barefoot running is faster. If the barefoot runners improve the most, on average, over their bare times, it would confirm the widespread suspicion that barefoot runners are crazy. Who would want to wear socks with lead weights?
With the vast differences in people, how could this be an accurate study? Age, weight, training, genetics, body fat %, length of time running barefoot etc.
I run faster now after 2 years of bare and minimal running than I did 20 years ago but it's not because of the shoes or lack there of. It's because I took the time to learn how to run better. Heck I'm 40lbs heavier and can go longer and fast than I did in high school. Funny what a little education and practice can do for you.
I run faster now after 2 years of bare and minimal running than I did 20 years ago but it's not because of the shoes or lack there of. It's because I took the time to learn how to run better. Heck I'm 40lbs heavier and can go longer and fast than I did in high school. Funny what a little education and practice can do for you.
I feel a little guilty when I keep winning my age group and being in the top ten percent of the women racers at my age because I know that as a barefoot or minshod runner I'm having more fun and using less energy! It's just not fair they have to compete with me.
Well said!!! Since I started barefooting and minimalist, I just love to run! It's the feeling you get, the connection with nature.... it's awesome! Who cares about how fast. Do it well, and enjoy it!
Someone should point this jackass towards Patrick.I've never seen a guy with a sister named Bill win a race, either.
And this guy doesn't know Patrick Sweeney
Patrick's records should shut her mouth once and for all and next time she? decides to write garbage like that she should get her research straight.
The article begins with this phrase:
"Have you ever seen a bare- foot runner win a race? No, you probably haven’t"
Lots of people saw a barefooted Abebe Bikila win the 1960 Olympic Marathon.
The fact that today's international elite runners win races with shoes on their feet has a lot to do with them being sponsored by shoe companies and not with the question if they would be able to win that same race barefoot. The Kenyan and Ethiopian elite runners probably would be able to win all their races barefooted, but if they did, what would become of their village? No more Nike's or Adidas' or whatever else shoe companies' money to support them and their families and their whole village.
In my opinion this is the main reason why barefooted race winners are quite rare: the very best athletes in the world are dependent on shoe-money and those who aren't, well they are simply not able to compete with them, shoes or not.
"Have you ever seen a bare- foot runner win a race? No, you probably haven’t"
Lots of people saw a barefooted Abebe Bikila win the 1960 Olympic Marathon.
The fact that today's international elite runners win races with shoes on their feet has a lot to do with them being sponsored by shoe companies and not with the question if they would be able to win that same race barefoot. The Kenyan and Ethiopian elite runners probably would be able to win all their races barefooted, but if they did, what would become of their village? No more Nike's or Adidas' or whatever else shoe companies' money to support them and their families and their whole village.
In my opinion this is the main reason why barefooted race winners are quite rare: the very best athletes in the world are dependent on shoe-money and those who aren't, well they are simply not able to compete with them, shoes or not.
There are a lot of people on this forum to make a good sample size. Don't we have people that run races sometimes shod and sometimes barefoot? I would accept the word of people on this site stating that at a given level of fitness they run quicker or slower barefoot than shod and by how much, over a study with 12 people tying weights to bare feet. I intend to run a mixture of races both shod and barefoot this year and compare times just out of curiousity. So far I ran one 5K race barefoot and one race shod and I finished 22 seconds per mile quicker shod 8 weeks later, but I was not at the same level of fitness. My fitness has been improving very quickly so I am looking forward to trying another 5K barefoot soon. By the way, I finished 5th in my age group and 15th overall barefoot.
The standard follow-up to that example is that he got faster the next years, in shoes. Haters end the discussion there, thinking they threw the trump card.
But the fact is, after his phenomenal run in 1960, he got scooped up by professional trainers who insisted he wear sponsored shoes (and he was all for it. He wasn't running Barefoot as some kind of alternative, they just couldn't afford shoes). His training completely changed, became scientific and full-time. He was going to get faster over the next four years with or without shoes on his feet.
And we'll never know what he would have been capable of if he'd been encouraged to stay Barefoot.
So, his story doesn't help the haters argument at all. But in that first run, he kicked all kinds of shod ass, woot woot!
"Statisically, almost nobody wins races. Barefoot runners are only the tiniest of minorities among running populations and it doesn't suprise me much at all that they're not all leaping to the fore. Those elites who do run Barefoot some of the time most likely put something on their feet for races. The rest of us are happy just to run."
I posted this comment at the end of the article before reading all your comments here. Mine's doubly redundundant, but in keeping with the spirit. ...and apologies to YOW, who's actually won races BF.
I posted this comment at the end of the article before reading all your comments here. Mine's doubly redundundant, but in keeping with the spirit. ...and apologies to YOW, who's actually won races BF.
There is another point: That fact that the best athletes win their races shod doesn't tell anything about their lifelong training from childhood on: During all the years before they were discovered by shoe sponsors, they ran barefoot everyday to and from school, which is why they developed good form, which made them run faster with less injuries during training and that's finally why they attracted shoe sponsors. In addition to sponsor's money, the fact of wearing shoes is also boosting the individual's social status ...
Ah, cobblestone. I ran over cobblestone in the Omaha Half. It felt so nice. Tricky, but like nice, smooth, large bumps. You definitely had to watch the ground.
Support Your Club
Forum statistics
Latest posts
-
Chiang Mai running sandals made from car tire rubber gain popularity
- Latest: Barefoot TJ
-
Get Your 2024 Wildwood Barefoot Country Music Fest Tickets Here
- Latest: Barefoot TJ
-
-
