New Study shows Shod running more efficient??

I took a more careful look at the study and have written it up in my blog: <http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/running-shod-more-efficient/

Nice write-up, Ah, thanks. Not sure how you came to this (suggested) conclusion:

From this study, it is plausible that barefoot running without the cushioning of the shoe, even if both are mid-foot striking, is less efficient due to a shorted stride length

Why? Why would a shorter stride length translate to higher effort? I don't get it.

And again, people concentrate on the cushioning but forget the outer skin and the engineering of the shoes. The Mayfly is a racing shoe and I'm sure it does give you a tiny bit of positive energy-return for each stride. Just the toe spring alone can do that. It also weighs next to nothing (less than VFFs), is designed to hold up for something like 300 miles or less under the best circumstances.

PS - forget to metion something: You have to take the > out of your link
 
Why? Why would a shorter stride length translate to higher effort? I don't get it.

I don't get it either. Look at cyclists. They have an incredibly high turnover and that's considered efficient. Why would having a shorter stride and higher turnover for running be considered less efficient?
 
I don't get it either. Look at cyclists. They have an incredibly high turnover and that's considered efficient. Why would having a shorter stride and higher turnover for running be considered less efficient?

To go the same speed with a shorter stride requires a higher cadence. With cycling you have gears to compensate for and take advantage of that higher cadence, keeping your body's efficiency in that "sweet spot". I don't think the same applies with running (but I could be wrong).

I also have doubts about supposed energy capture and release from the sole of the shoe. From my (admittedly subjective) feel, the relaxation time for sole material is quite fast (very short duration). However, I bet the whole put-foot-down-then-bring-it-up is at least a factor of 100 longer. Thus, you are not going to get any energy recapture from the sole of a shoe. You'd need those super-spring shoes pictured a few entries back in order to take any advantage of the put-down/pull-up time.

One more thing I didn't mention in the blog entry was that that 3% translates into a stride that is about 1 inch shorter.
 
I think the real question here is why do any of us really care all that much. Any increase or decrease in efficiency probably isn't of epic proportions so the only one who should really care are the elite athletes. Injury prevention studies and the like are far more likely to interest me than efficiency ones. I don't so much care about a few seconds of speed, I very much care about less injuries.
 
I think the real question here is why do any of us really care all that much. Any increase or decrease in efficiency probably isn't of epic proportions so the only one who should really care are the elite athletes. Injury prevention studies and the like are far more likely to interest me than efficiency ones. I don't so much care about a few seconds of speed, I very much care about less injuries.
+1
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barefoot TJ
I will not be taking my shoes off or on for the potential 3% gain. Glad people are looking at running with this kind of detail, but for me I am still trying to get,

Easy, Light, Smooth, then maybe Fast
 
Is barefoot faster??
Try this experiment for yourself.
I did this workout last fall on a college track.
All you need is a heart rate monitor, shoes and a watch.
Warmup one or two miles BF or shod until you can maintain a certain pulse rate of your choosing. (I used 130)
Time yourself for 800 meters while maintaining your chosen pulse rate as close as possible. Note your time.
Switch to shod or BF if you warmed up shod.
Run a lap to stabilize your pulse.
Time yourself again for two laps maintaining the pulse rate as close as possible. Note your time.
Keep repeating this through at least four cycles.
Average your 800 meter times.
Was your time faster BF ??
Or shod??
I used Saucony Kinvara shoes.
My 800 times averaged 12 seconds faster BF.
I would be curious to see if other people have similar results.
Try it with different shoes, different pulse rate or different distances.
I definately think BF is faster for short distances. I did take 12 seconds off my mile race time by going BF.

s-exercise.png
 
I think the real question here is why do any of us really care all that much. .

another +1 from me, even though it seems like I really care. It's just an academic diuscussion, from my part. I know from my own experience that BF is more relaxing, just as barefootn just posted. I typically run with a mix of BF and water shoes. I just carry the shoes with me for rough terrain that I can't do BF (there are a lot of hard-packed dirt roads crossing the fields here, with large stones spread on the them for traction and against erosion. I can either hobble along BF very slowly, or pull on my water shoes and run, but i can't run on them BF).

But I also run straight across the fields/meadows and through the town on the paved roads, and sometimes right through the woods - a little bit of everything, I guess.

So, I do a lot of switching back and forth during my runs, and sometimes just leave the water shoes on for the hell of it when I don't really need them. What I'm getting at is that I've often enough been running down a road with water shoes, taken them off and noticed the difference. It's very apparent that I relax more and my pulse drops immediately.

It's an objective observation but it could well be a subjective, wished-for effect (?). Don't know. Don't really care. Even if it were "proven" tomorrow that BF running is 56% less efficient than shod, I'd still run BF, because, well, y'all understand! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pbarker
I actually do care. It's bad enough we have so much negativity surrounding our way of running, but then BS like this starts to propagate and makes us look like fools who have no clue. I am no fool, although the scars on my feet from running in shoes once made me one. Fool me once shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

We don't need a bunch of bogus, bad info circulating around convincing people who would otherwise benefit from barefoot running. It's defeating, and if we don't voice our disagreement and point out the flaws of this study, then it's self-defeating.

Check out the story on the home page about this: http://thebarefootrunners.org/threads/debunking-the-university-of-colorado-barefoot-running-study-“unmaking”-the-case-for-running-shoes.6088/
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbondi
TJ - that's a very good point! I was thinking about this during the day and realised that that's the real motivation for me to respond to discussions about these (stupid) studies.

Also - thx for the link, I had missed that!
 
You are right TJ.

Here is my contribution.


rbondi Exactly or if i run with one shoe I may twist and buckle so badly i will spin out of control because of the imbalance. just kidding :)

Ran 7k today in one shoe to test .......could I detect ..... a difference.

I biggest thing was road feel. It was as if my barefoot relaxed on contact with the ground. Maybe muscle timing changes with being barefoot. No science here just my own observations.

On a scale of 1-100, the road feel was 1 on the shod side and a very colorful 100 on the barefoot side.

It is a real shame the study missed the point that barefoot is barefoot.

here is the video

 
  • Like
Reactions: BFwillie_g
The only place shod running has any advantage for me is running on trails. On pavement I have a slight speed advantage barefoot over min-shoes plus I just recover better running barefoot on all my slower everyday runs and its noticeable.
 
It is a real shame the study missed the point that barefoot is barefoot.

This is the biggest point! These people weren't even barefoot!
 
Firstly, I'm now squarely in the MR camp rather than the BFR camp so not real sure how relevant my response is to begin with but I've never let that stop me! I did the BFR thing, got my form good enough that I no longer have any knee or foot pain then decided I'd like a wee bit of cushioning on my longer runs so bought some Instincts and haven't looked back. I am thinking of checking out the Samsons too though.

Anyway, I'm in the "who cares" camp. It doesn't bother me one way or the other if it is more efficient or not. Further to that, if someone is put off from trying BFR because of of a pretty questionable "study" such as this it's their loss not mine. I'm not out to save the world.
 
Well, I am. ;) That's kinda why we're here. Different strokes, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BFwillie_g
Well, I am. ;) That's kinda why we're here. Different strokes, I guess.

Nice! :)

Btw, that whole "camp" mentality has got to go! Not only in our club but everywhere. It's fostered and exploited by wily politicians who understand "divide and conquer", and it creeps into our daily lives, causing all kinds of unnecessary, destructive antagonism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbondi
Well, I am. ;) That's kinda why we're here. Different strokes, I guess.
:)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for advocating BF/M-R and I talk to people about it all the time. I'm just not going to let a study bother me too much and I'm not going to lose any sleep over someone who isn't willing to give something a go for themselves. If they have that little interest then they were probably never going to run barefoot to begin with.
 

Support Your Club

Forum statistics

Threads
19,094
Messages
183,434
Members
8,688
Latest member
Jojo9090