I have been transitioning to Vibram Five Fingers over the last 4 months. My experience is mixed. 

The first month of wearing VFF’s saw me not running any further then 2 miles and having tight calves following each workout. Once I got through that 1st month, everything changed. I was able to significantly increase mileage each week, the calves didn’t tighten up any longer, and I have all but eliminated joint/muscle fatigue that I used to have with typical running shoes. Then last month came…

I ran an 8 miler and had a slight pain in my right 5th metatarsal about midfoot. It went away after a day or two and about a week later I ran a 10 miler. That’s when I had to head to the doctor. He took x-rays that ended up being negative. I took a week off then run a few miles followed by more physical therapy. The injury has improved dramatically. 

Next week, I am going to be running the Denver Rock n Roll Marathon. I will probably start in VFF’s and switch out to my typical Saucony’s at the half way point (if my wife finds me at the half way mark). 

My conclusion…

I am sticking with VFF’s as they have all but eliminated past pain in joints and muscles. I just need to transition slower. I exclaim this to EVERYONE, but didn’t take my own advice.

You can check out more of my thoughts on minimal running here: http://runningsomewhere.com/ru…

Great run down Pete!

David Damron
Running Somewhere

Regarding form, I think we very often mistake «beautiful running form» with «good running form» or «efficient running form» or «running form that prevent injuries». I’m not too fond of changing running form in a healthy runner. Considering form changes, I remember from coaching badminton what we called in french «pratique variée». The principle was that if you alway do the same movement over and over (like a forehand), you only program it once. However, if you alternte forehand/backhand/forehand/etc. you have to program it everytime you switch. Wouldn’t running on different surfaces, while barefoot produce the same effect? Or what would running in different running shoes do? 

I would agree – I think pure barefoot is more likely to elicit a change, even if they did not find that in this study. The video I have seems to indicate a difference between VFFs and barefoot.
Sent from my iPad

Shorter stride length and increased cadence go hand in hand for a given pace over a given distance – the number of additional steps per minute required to accumulate 7500 over a marathon should only vary by how long it takes you to finish the marathon. If you shorten stride length with a forefoot strike, you have to increase cadence to maintain the same pace, but 30 steps/min is way too much. I’d also add that the correlation between height and stride length has been shown to be very low (e.g., by Cavanagh and colleagues) – very tall people can have short strides and vice versa.

i had a student who was seeing a PT who told her he knew she was a heel striker because that’s what she did when he watched her walk. I’m amazed by how few in health care look at gait when treating injured runners – we have a long way to go.

Pete

I’ve been pondering on the interplay between being shod vs barefoot and the time of flight vs time on stance.  From my own experiment of 1 I’m pretty sure that when running barefoot I up my cadence primarily by reducing time of flight rather than cutting time on stance, this isn’t something I consciously do but something that seems to happen instinctively to reduce the discomfort of soles of my feet.  Perhaps when they toughen up some more I’ll do this less.

Looking at your NYC barefoot video there is good example of this – have a look at for the vibram runner in yellow shorts and red top who is heel striking, and the barefoot running just in front of him wearing black shorts and bump bag.  I pick out this pair as they are both running pretty well in sync – save for the heel strike and time of flight.  What it looks to be is that the barefoot runner is spending less time in the air, and gets the foot down quicker, party because a planta-flexed foot reaches further down than a dorsa-flexed foot but I’d guess because the barefoot runner is pushing off less.  I haven’t done anything more than eye balling the difference, one really would need to properly analyze the motion to know how it all fits together.

Another observation that needs further analysis is that to me it looks like the angle between the point of first contact on the foot and to the center of the hips relative to the angle varies between forefoot and heel strikers.  To me your video suggests that the forefoot strikers are landing with a angle further off the vertical – so they are landing further in front of center of mass than their heel striker counter parts.  I really believe this needs to be properly measured and analyzed as this observation is contrary to what we get told is a good thing when it comes to running gait i.e. landing closer to your center of mass.

Finally a general comment about the video, I just find the majority of the barefoot runners to be so darn graceful, the fluidity of motion is what strikes me as enchanting.  A barefoot is also looks so natural and sleek compared even to minimal footwear.

I know they are in some specialty stores – my buddy Mark Cucuzzella sells them at TR Treads in WV. You can also get them on-line at Zappos, which allows free returns if shoes don’t fit. For girls, my daughter really like the Vivobarefoot Pally, but my son won’t wear any of them because he doesn’t like the looks. Both of my kids are currently in Merrell Barefoot and Crocs. The latter have a lot of cushion, but they are nice and wide, and they would rebel if I tried to take them away!

PEte

i do agree footwear and orthoses can have a very positive effect with many injuries, and the literature supports that, and like you, it is hard to know how enforced marching relates to running, but the fascinating thing about this report isthat they connected actual lack of physical repite, in the form of sleep.. with injury.. interesting concept..!

I view it differently – I’d like to have cheaper kids shoes, but a typical running shoe is more expensive and will wear out in far less than nine months if you only use one pair. Why should we hold kids shoes to a different standard if we think they are important to their health?