Size - does it matter?

Piggyback RidePlease

Piggyback RidePlease

Barefooters
Nov 13, 2010
85
1
8
#1
If you were able to take 2 identical barefoot runners what would the effect be of changing the foot size of one of them?


I did a quick search but didn't find anything that answered this although I'd have thought some studies are bound to have been conducted. In absence of this information here's my guess at some pros & cons of foot size barefoot:


Lets consider a longer foot:
  • Arch: Your arch will be weaker as it is closer to a straight line (the height of the arch seems to vary little with foot length IMHO). I'm guessing that this is rarely an issue.
  • Weight: The foot will be heavier and moving it will presumably sap energy - not so good for distance and not ideal for speed either?
  • Stress: The foot bones are longer so subject to more stress but the forces of moments are lower so less stress on the leg muscles? I'm guessing that in a lifelong barefooter this won't come in to play much.
  • Cadence: From school boy physics I am guessing that the optimum cadence will be lower the larger the foot which may affect the muscle group used (remember we are comparing identical runners). Perhaps there is some connection with "standing wave theories" at a given frequency and similar principals?
  • Surface: A larger foot area will be better in the soft stuff as you will sink less. It will also spread the load more which may reduce the effect of things like punctures.
Clearly there's a bit of a melting pot when it comes to feet, they range in size quite a lot but is there any correlation between a foot size and what they may be best for (e.g. speed, distance or endurance), what do you think?

:quest:
 
#2
I hear long, long time ago

I hear long, long time ago that size doesn't matter at all......oh wait are you talking about feet?



I think strength has more to do with better performance than long/short feet. But then again I don't know, I guess my mind is in the gutter this AM.
 
#3
Feet should be big enough to

Feet should be big enough to bridge the gap between ankle and ground. Beyond that, I'd be surprised if there are any sort of correlations.

Now tht I think on it a bit,, there might be a weight issue...maybe pruning a few of those underused toes would help in the long run? (;-)
 
#4
The arch height and the

The arch height and the strength shoudn't be an issue after a couple of years. Both your muscles and your bones will adapt to the increased stress, the process takes longer for you bones but the muscles adapt in a few months.

Weight: There have been studies on the effects of shoe weight and there have also been cases where they haven't used an actual shoe, just a weight strapped to the ankle so that should simulate what you're talking about fairly well. Basically, there is an efficiency loss when you add weight to your foot, I don't remember exactly how much but 1%/100 grams sounds about right.

Cadence: If you run fast enough foot size shouldnt matter since your foot will no longer be at the end of the pendulum, the knee will. At lower speeds, where you don't have as much of a butt kick, there could be a difference.

Surface: How much are we talking here? Sure, given identical weight of the two runners and a huge difference in foot size you might notice a difference but within the normal range I have a feeling other factors will play a bigger role in determining if you sink or float, so to speak.
 
#5
There's probably an ideal

There's probably an ideal foot length and type, but it will take quite a while for the evidence to prove it.

Swimmers benefit from big feet, runners from long femurs, and the list goes on.

Exceptions don't disprove the evidence, Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues never really changed the fact that height helps with B-Ball performance.

My guess is that foot length will prove to be a very minor factor in a runner's total package, so it will be next to impossible to compare enough athletes with otherwise identicle parameters.
 
#6
Long feet = scraped toes from

Long feet = scraped toes from dragging those boats. Just ask my husband. He's gotten some pretty gnarly scabs from his letting his flippers fall.

Lift lift lift!

Hahaha.
 
#7
 In a science class long ago,

In a science class long ago, we did an experiment that calculated the total PSI that we exerted on the earth. It was quite simple to do the calculations but what amazed some of us (me in particular) was how I managed to have the lowest PSI in the entire class and how on average the females had the highest. Standing at 75 inches and 190 lbs I suddenly became proud of my bigger feet. Happy that my flippers spread my weight out a little better than the rest. Also, do you think that with more area comes more traction? Now there is a point were a foot would, in fact, be too big to run efficiently.

Well, that was my two cents. Also, sorry if some of that was mentioned already... I skimmed all previous posts pretty well to make sure I wasn't playing the repeater.
 
#8
Wouldnt a longer foot give

Wouldnt a longer foot give you better leverage against your calf muscles, therefore propelling you faster? Im not talking about pushing off, but more of using your muscles elasticity.
 
#9
I just read something about

I just read something about this in regards to gender, and why women suffer more back, foot, hip pain than men. Apparently it's because women have smaller, narrower feet. I'll see if I can find the link...



http://www.americaspodiatrist.com/2010/02/why-women-have-more-foot-knee-hip-back-pain-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/
 
#10
 Thanks for the link Methead.

Thanks for the link Methead. I knew my theories could not have been thought of by just myself!
 
#11
There probably is an ideal

There probably is an ideal foot size, but its not like we can do anything to change the size of our foot. As for best use I think a foot would probably be equally good for speed or distance. That kind of thing is mostly determined for an individual by their muscle type, be it fast-twitch, medium-twitch, or slow-twitch.
 
#12
nethead wrote:I just read

nethead said:
I just read something about this in regards to gender, and why women suffer more back, foot, hip pain than men. Apparently it's because women have smaller, narrower feet. I'll see if I can find the link..
Click to expand...

It probably has something more to do with those god awful shoes women toture themselves with on a daily basis. Bet you women who have healthy feet and spend a majority of their time barefoot don't have these problems.
 
#13
nethead wrote:I just read

nethead said:
I just read something about this in regards to gender, and why women suffer more back, foot, hip pain than men. Apparently it's because women have smaller, narrower feet. I'll see if I can find the link...



http://www.americaspodiatrist.com/2010/02/why-women-have-more-foot-knee-hip-back-pain-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/
Click to expand...



Great article! However I was mildly put off that they make such an issue out of women having smaller slighter feet than men, because as a general rule women are smaller slighter people than men. I feel like foot size almost always correlates to height and bone structure, not gender alone. It would be awfully odd to see a 5'4" women with the same size feet as a 5'9.5" man(average american heights) and really 1 inch difference in foot size for 5 inch difference in height doesn't seem overly drastic.



/end rant

I think into these things waaaaaaay to much sometimes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Support Your Club

Xero Shoes Amuri Z-Trek

Forum statistics

Threads
19,152
Messages
183,616
Members
8,702
Latest member
wleffert-test

Latest posts

Share this page

Share this page
Top Bottom
Back
Menu