The list below will give a good sense of the type of shoe that I like, and how I narrow down models that I’d like to review here on Runblogger. Most are road shoes, most are on the more minimal side, and many are racing flats. I don’t have specs for all of them, but where available I have included them in my brief summary of each (weights are for men’s size 9). Photo credits all go to Running Warehouse.

Lot’s of eye candy on the way, here goes!

1. adidas Takumi Sen Boost

I’m a huge fan of the adidas Adios, and really like the Boost midsole material. The Takumi Sen is a speed flat, so a bit less shoe than the Adios, and the addition of Boost to the sole should make for an interesting ride. The $160 price tag is a bit steep for a racing flat, which may prevent me from pulling the trigger on a purchase. Specs: 6.1 oz, 22mm heel, 16mm forefoot. Available February 22 at Running Warehouse and Wiggle UK.

2. Altra Instinct 3.0

I ran in the Instinct 1.0 and 1.5 and found them a bit firm and stiff. Reports were that version 2.0 was super soft, so I passed. Version 3.0 is supposedly firmed back up a bit, but looks to be more cushioned than the original. Will it hit my sweet spot? Only one way to find out… Specs:  8.1 oz, 24mm heel, 24mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

3. Altra Superior 2.0

I don’t run a lot of trail miles, but I like to keep a few trail shoes on hand for the occasional run and for winter runs on snow and crusty ice (more of the latter so far this year, but about to get dumped on tomorrow!). I liked the original Superior, but durability was an issue and grip was not great. The Superior 2.0 looks great and the tread appears more aggressive. Specs: 8.7 oz, 15mm heel, 15mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

4. Asics 33-DFA

Asics is releasing a trio of new shoes in their 33 line, and the DFA is the most minimal. The new foam used in the sole of all three is supposed to be cushy, and the DFA pairs this foam with a 4mm drop and sub 20mm stack. Sounds like my kind of shoe. Specs: 8.6 oz, 19mm heel, 15mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse and Wiggle UK.

5. Asics 33-FA

In terms of cushioning, the Asics 33-FA is the middle-ground shoe among the three new 33 series shoes being released. Specs place it in a similar category to the Saucony Kinvara and New Balance Fresh Foam 980. Could be a solid choice for easy runs and longer distances. Specs: 8.9 oz, 25mm heel, 21mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

6. Asics DS Racer 10

I’ve had my eye on this one for awhile, but haven’t pulled the trigger. Not a brand new shoe, but I loved the Hyper Speed 6 and the DS Racer looks somewhat similar. Nice looking shoe, and specs place it right about in my sweet spot. Specs: 6.3 oz, 23mm heel, 15mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

7. Brooks Launch 2

The Brooks Launch 2 is on my must-have list for 2015, and I’ll likely pre-order a pair soon. The original Launch has gone without an update for years, and I consider it a classic. It carried me through my first marathon in which I did not hit the wall, and it is one of the smoothest riding shoes I‘ve run in. Version 2 looks phenomenal (love the blue/yellow colorway!), and you can expect an expedited review once I have a pair. Specs: 9.9 oz, 27mm heel, 17mm forefoot. Available February 15 at Running Warehouse.

8. Brooks PureFlow 4

I liked the feel of the sole cushioning in the Brooks Pure Project shoes, but the PureFlow 3 was a step back in terms of fit. Curious if v4 has returned to the fit of earlier versions. Specs: 8.9 oz, 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot. Available February 15 at Running Warehouse.

9. Mizuno Wave Ekiden 9

I love racing flats, and this one looks pretty sweet. Light, low stack, and fast looking. Specs: 4.8oz, 15mm heel, 10mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse and Wiggle UK.

10. New Balance 1500

The New Balance 1400v2 is one of my all-time favorite shoes, and I just recently got a pair of the 1600v2. The 1500 slots in between these two – the question for me is whether the sole has the deadish feel of the 1600 or the cushier ride of the 1400. Specs: 7.3 oz, 22mm heel, 16mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

11. New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay

The photo above is labeled Fresh Foam 980v2, but in a move away from their traditional number-based naming system, New Balance is renaming the shoe as the Fresh Foam Boracay. The original 980 was an “almost-there” kind of shoe for me. Soften the heel a bit, open up the overly pointy toebox, and you have a great shoe for long runs. Curious to see if the updates to the v2 make this a more runnable shoe. Specs: weight ???, 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot. Available March 9 at Running Warehouse and Wiggle UK.

12. New Balance MT101 2015

An update to an old favorite, but apparently it will only be around for a year. The MT101 was kind of like the New Balance 1400 built for trails. Superb fit, decent traction, light weight, great heel cushion, and affordably priced. Loved the original, still debating whether to try out the update since only the upper has changed. Specs: 7.2 oz, 25mm heel, 16mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

13. Newton Energy NR II

I loved the original Energy NR, and was impressed by the Newton Kismet/Fate combo released last year. I’m interested in trying out either the Energy II or the Aha, but like the Energy II color combo better (note: both have been out for awhile, so not really new shoes anymore). The Energy and Aha are Newton’s POP3 shoes, which means they have the least prominent forefoot lugs and thus are thought to be a good entry point if you haven’t run in a Newton previously. I like the fact that they are more reasonably priced than other Newtons, and I don’t see much reason to pay $175 for one of the top-of-the-line models. Specs: 8.8oz, 23mm heel, 19mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

14. Nike Wildhorse 2

Have heard great things about the Nike Terra Kiger 2 trail shoe, and since David Henry has already reviewed that one for me, I’m curious to try the Wildhorse 2. I like a trail shoe that can also handle roads, and this one looks like a great match for my typical usage. Specs: 7.7oz, 22mm heel, 17mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse and Wiggle UK.

15. Pear Izumi EM Road N1 v2

I wish Pear Izumi would make it clearer that the above shoe is version 2 of the EM Road N1 as it doesn’t seem to indicate it anywhere on the naming/labeling. Version 1 was a firm but very smooth-riding shoe, and this update looks better from an aesthetic standpoint. Not sure if I’ll try it, but I like the original enough that I may give it a go. Specs: 8.3 oz, not sure about stack heights. Available now at Running Warehouse.

16. Salomon Sense Link

Don’t really know much about this shoe other than that the specs look like a good match for me, and I’ve been impressed by nearly every piece of Salomon gear that I’ve tried. This one looks to be designed as a road/light trail hybrid. Specs: ??? oz, 21mm heel, 15mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

17. Salomon S-Lab X-Series

I’m really excited about this shoe despite the high price tag. Maybe it’s because Running Warehouse compared it to the New Balance 1400 and adidas Adios Boost, maybe it’s because I had a really good experience with the Sense Ultra and Sense Pro last year. The X-Series is a lightweight road shoe, kind of a surprise from a brand that focuses on trail. This one might be on my must-try list. Specs: 7.7oz, 23mm heel, 15mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

18. Saucony Endorphin Racer

This one is a drool-inducer for me. Hadn’t heard anything about it until I saw it last week on the Running Warehouse site. No specifics posted yet by RW on weight or stack height (Kyle in the comments indicates 11mm heel and forefoot), but it is zero drop (you can see it on the the insole in the top view photo). Wiggle UK lists weight at 88 grams, which is equal to 3.1 oz(!). Looks like a competitor to the Mizuno Universe and New Balance 5000. Expensive, but I’m a sucker for ultralight flats. Specs: 3.1 oz, 11mm heel, 11mm forefoot. Available February 22 at Running Warehouse.

19. Saucony Fastwitch 7

I really like the fit and ride of the Fastwitch 6, and version 7 looks great. Not much else to say on this one. Specs: 7.0 oz, 18mm heel, 14mm forefoot (per Kyle in the comments). Available February 15 at Running Warehouse.

20. Under Armour Speedform RC Vent

I’ve been hearing a lot of positive things about the new running shoes coming from Under Armour (the amply cushioned UA Gemini is getting a lot of raves from shoe geeks). The Speedform RC is the lowest profile of the new models and I love the bright colorway. Specs: 6.0 oz, 25mm heel, 19mm forefoot. Available now at Running Warehouse.

So that’s my list for at least the first half of 2015, though I’m sure additional models will pop up (e.g., the next iteration of the Saucony Kinvara). Which shoes are you most excited about this year?

(Disclosure: Links to Running Warehouse and Wiggle UK are provided where available in the above post. Both retailers are Runblogger advertising partners, but this list is based on my own shoe preferences and was not influenced by them in any way.)

This year I thought it might be helpful to put my list into context by explaining at the outset the general characteristics that work well for me in running shoes. I’m not going to break my list up into categories this year since I didn’t try many trail shoes, so I’ll address my preferences for training shoes, racing flats, and trail at the outset.

My Preferred Characteristics in Running Shoes

1. First of all, I’ll point out that my feet are of average width (I always by D width shoes), but are fairly high volume (thick from top to bottom). As such, certain shoes can present depth problems in the forefoot (e.g., Nike Free 5.0). I generally like shoes that don’t constrict my toes or squish them together, and that allow a bit of vertical volume for my forefoot.

2. For slower or longer miles I prefer shoes that have a softish heel and a firmer forefoot. I am a light heel striker who loads mostly from midfoot forward. A hard heel above a certain stack height (not sure exactly what it is) can torque my ankle a bit and makes for a harsher ride (e.g., original Mizuno Sayonara). I don’t like too much squish in the forefoot as it makes me fell like I have to work too hard (e.g., Hoka Clifton, Skechers GoRun Ultra). I’ve become more tolerant of shoes varying in heel-forefoot drop, but generally prefer less than 8mm offset.

3. For racing flats and speed workouts I like shoes that are lightweight, low stack height, low drop, and firm. I also like a bit of extra stiffness to make a flat more responsive.

4. I don’t run trails too often, and those that I do run tend not to be very technical. I generally like a trail shoe that can handle mixed road and trail routes, and big lugs aren’t necessary for most of what I run. I also tend to use trail shoes often in the winter when conditions warrant (e.g., crusty ice and snow), so grip is helpful. I like a firmish midsole on trails, but not so firm that a shoe feels harsh on stretches of road.

Let’s move on to the top shoes! The list below is in no particular order, it just includes the shoes that I had the best experiences with in 2014. None are 100% perfect, and in each summary I point out pros and cons where warranted.

1. Saucony Kinvara 5

I have been a Kinvara fan since v1, but version 4 was a bust due to a poor fit in the forefoot. Saucony remedied the issue in version 5 and my old favorite was back in top form (my Kinvara 5 review here). I love the Kinvara because it’s affordable, light, and provides a softish ride that is a great match for my stride. It’s not a shoe I’d choose for speed, but for me it’s the perfect shoe for long or easy miles. The only issue I had with the K5 was a hot spot under my big toe on the first few runs, but that seemed to alleviate with further use. Great shoe, and glad to see it return to my top shoe list! Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

2. Asics Hyper Speed 6

I’d call the Asics Hyper Speed 6 the best buy of the year (my review here). At an MSRP of $85 it’s quite a bargain, and can be found on-line much cheaper at a variety of retailers (I like inexpensive shoes!). In my Hyper Speed 6 review I ranked it right up there with the New Balance 1400v2 and adidas adios Boost, and I think those are both reasonable comparisons. The Hyperspeed has a softish heel, firm forefoot, and weighs in at under 6oz – great shoe for speedy runs where you want a bit more cushion than a typical flat will provide. The Hyper Speed would be ideal as a half-marathon racer for me, and might even work for a full. I also love the upper of the shoe, and it offers a roomy forefoot fit for a racing shoe. If I was pressed to choose my all-around top road shoe of the year, this might be it. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

3. Skechers GoRun 4

Given that the GoRun 4 is a pretty significant update from top to bottom (my review here), I was worried that Skechers might ruin a shoe that I loved. Instead, they produced what is in my opinion the best version of the shoe to date, and I fell in love with the GoRun 4 on my first run in it. Softish sole, good flexibility, and a perfect fit for my foot – pretty much ticked all of my boxes. I could do without the Quick-Fit portal on the heel tab, and the upper mesh isn’t the most breathable, but in all other respects the GR4 is a great match for me. And like the Kinvara and Hyperspeed above, the GR4 is affordable at an MSRP of $100 (notice a trend here?). Purchase at Running Warehouse or Shoebuy.

4. Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit

The Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit might be the best Nike Free shoe I have worn (my review here). The Flyknit upper is extremely comfortable, sole flexibilty is fantastic (as with all Free shoes), the forefoot is nice and wide, and the ride is nicely cushioned. My only real problem with the shoe is that I get a bit of pressure on top of my foot with extended wear (my high volume foot acting up again!). It’s generally not a problem while running, moreso when I wear them all day casually (which I do quite often). Great shoe for easy runs. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

5. adidas adios Boost 2

This one is all about the sole (my adios Boost 2 review here). I found the upper/fit of the adios Boost 2 (top shoe in image above) to be a step back from the original (bottom shoe in image above) – tighter fit up front and a not as comfortable. However, the adios Boost 2 retains one of the best soles on the market. The Boost midsole material shines under the heel by providing a forgiving ride, and the forefoot is firm enough to provide more than enough responsiveness. I used the adios Boost 2 for everything from track workouts to long runs, and it may be one of the more versatile shoes in my arsenal. Improve the upper and reduce the price a bit and this might be one of the best shoes on the market. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

6. Pearl Izumi EM Road N0

The Pearl Izumi EM Road N0 is a no-frills racing flat that impressed me quite a bit (my review here). I love the simplicity of the shoe, the ride is firm and responsive, and it fits my foot like a glove. It’s unfortunately named as I think some people expected N0 to imply that it’s zero drop – it’s not (I measured 6mm drop). I also think the shoe looks great. An all-around good choice if you’re in the market for a shoe for racing or speedwork. Purchase at Running Warehouse.

7. Salomon Sense Pro

I only tried a few trail shoes this year (see David Henry’s roundup of the best trail shoes of 2014 for more), and the Sense Pro was my favorite (view my Sense Pro review here). At first I thought the fit was too narrow, but they broke in well and I grew to really like the performance-like fit. They feel kind of like a racing flat for the trails. Lugs are not huge so they also handle bits of road adequately. I also like the Sense Ultra, but given the price difference I’d opt for the Pro between the two since the shoes are pretty similar. Purchase at Running Warehouse.

Honorable Mention

Altra The One 2 – This was the first Altra shoe I have tried that offered a sufficiently forgiving and flexible ride for longer miles on roads. I enjoyed the pairing of a softer sole with the wide Altra toe box, but I’m still not sure how crazy I am about the bowling-shoe style upper (I go back and forth on it, can’t decide!). Very comfy shoe! Read my review here.

Newton Kismet/Fate – I lump the Kismet and Fate together because they are basically the same shoe, with the Kismet having just a bit more girth in the sole at the midfoot for added “stability” (not sure it does much of anything). I like the 5-lug platform that Newton now uses – it makes for less medial-lateral roll than the old 4-lug platform. I don’t see much reason to spend $50 more for the top-line Newton shoes like the Gravity/Motion when the Kismet/Fate run so similarly at a lower price point. Read my Newton Kismet review here (I never reviewed the Fate because they are so similar).

I should have a reader survey of favorite shoes posted soon, but if you’d like to share your personal favorites in a comment please feel free to do so!

Disclosure: Purchases made from retailer websites linked in this post provide a small commission to Runblogger. Thanks for your support!

I’ve spent the past two days (!) reading through threads on barefoot running and the dangers of running in Vibram Fivefingers at the Podiatry Arena (thanks to a reader for pointing this out to me), and I can’t help but come away frustrated by the level of animosity between the medical podiatry and barefoot running communities. There seems to be such a level of disdain of each group for the other (this is not universal, but it is clearly there if you read through these posts and those by people like Christopher McDougall and some on the barefoot running sites) that it in many cases precludes a thoughtful and balanced discussion of the topic. I consider myself to straddle the middle ground on this issue – I’ve tried running barefoot and it’s not for me, but I also believe in the benefits of minimalist running shoes based on my own personal, and yes, anecdotal experience. As an academic myself, I agree strongly that claims made by either side need to be backed up by good science, and a lot of the debate right now could be quashed if we just admitted that the science showing that either barefoot or shod running is better from an injury prevention or performance standpoint just isn’t there yet.

I thought I’d hone in on a few of the points that keep coming up in the debate between these two sides, and add in some of my thoughts.

1. The “It’s a Fad” Argument. I repeatedly see barefoot running being called a fad practiced by a small minority of runners that will eventually “fade away.” Based on my experience, I would tend to agree that barefoot running is not a widespread practice in the running community (I filmed over 975 runners at the Manchester Marathon last Fall, and not one was barefoot, nor did I see a single barefoot runner in a 5K with several thousand runners last night in my hometown), but I fail to see why this relative rarity is pertinent to the debate on the merits of barefoot running? It seems like this argument is brought up moreso in the context of marginalizing and isolating barefoot runners more than anything else.

Although there may not be a lot of people running barefoot as a percentage of the total running population, some are, and the level of interest in both barefoot and minimalist running is high right now (I can attest to this personally based on the level of traffic my posts on the subject bring to this blog), probably thanks to media attention associated with the publication of Christopher McDougall’s “Born to Run” and Daniel Lieberman’s recent paper in Nature. Dismissing barefoot running as a fad that will “fade away” ignores the fact that a least some people want to try it, and should be advised how to do it carefully so that they don’t get hurt (and some in the medical profession have done this very well).

2. Mutual Disrespect. On the one hand, the podiatrists on the “barefoot running” thread repeatedly say they have nothing against barefoot running if done correctly, then in the next breath some of them refer to barefoot runners as “nutters,” then hedge by pointing out that some are more reasonable than others. One commenter went so far as to mock Daniel Lieberman for only being able to run the London Marathon at a 10:41 pace, and called it “not a very good advertisement for Vibram Fivefingers.” Mocking fellow academic researchers for not being able to hang with elite runners is just plain unprofessional, and quite frankly, borderline offensive. Critically analyzing Lieberman’s research on its scientific merits is fine, but attacking him personally based on a race time is bad form.

Similarly, I don’t view it as helpful when barefoot runners hammer on podiatrists as peddling garbage and snake-oil that. I don’t view any of this as helpful since it only reinforces the animosity between these two camps. Thoughtful and respectful discussion would go a long way to helping move along the science behind this debate – lets stop with the mutual hating on each other (is that too strong a word?).

3. The “Minimalist is Nothing New” Argument. I repeatedly see long-time runners commenting that the recent barefoot/minimalist running trend/resurgence is “nothing new” and that they were running in minimalist shoes back in the 1960’s and early 1970’s because that’s all they had to wear back then. I’m not sure what this rather annoying argument accomplishes other than to make those making it take on an air of superiority relative to those of us who don’t have the good fortune to have been running for decades.

I doubt many would disagree with the statement that shoes in the 60’s and 70’s were a lot like today’s so-called “minimalist shoes”, but the reality is that a lot of runners out there today weren’t running in the 60’s and 70’s, and have only been exposed to running in pronation controlled shoes with a large heel. The idea of running in a “minimalist” shoe is new to this population of runners (myself included – I’ve run off-and-on most of my life, but regularly and fanatically for only about 3 years), and many are fearful of the consequences of moving away from shoes that they have been told that they need to wear by supposedly more knowledgeable running store clerks and running publications. I’m no different – I was put in stability shoes when I first started running, and it was something of a leap of faith when I started running in Nike Free 3.0’s, and then in the Vibram Fiivefingers. Thankfully, I have had a very positive experience moving toward lighter, less-supportive running footwear, and have not been bitten by the injury bug (although I’ve probably now jinxed myself by saying that). I had no idea that lightweight trainers and racing flats were a possibility. I wasn’t running back in the 60’s and early 70’s (I wasn’t even born yet), so the idea was new to me, regardless of how old it might be to some who have been running for 30-40 years.

4. Today’s Runner “Prefers/Chooses” Cushioned Shoes. A related point that follows off of the previous one is that I’ve seen it suggested that the fact that runners seem to prefer and gravitate toward cushioned, thicker soled running shoes is evidence of their utility/benefit. Is it not equally possible that these shoes are so prevalent because they are the ones being advertised and marketed heavily and are the predominant type of running shoe carried by shoe stores? I don’t know about you, but I have a very hard time finding racing flats in most generalist shoe stores (e.g., Foot Locker, Dick’s, etc.), and generally have to order them on-line. Given this, it’s not unreasonable to assume that a relatively new or casual runner might not even know that minimalist shoes exist as an option. Furthermore, at almost any store you are at the mercy of the clerk who helps you, and expertise among employees is highly variable. Lets not also forget that a large number of runners probably still choose shoes more for aesthetic reasons than any structural design features that they might possess, and that effective marketing often carries the day when it comes to shoe choice.

5. Abebe Bikila. Almost every time I see the isolated yet impressive example of Abebe Bikila brought up in the shod vs. barefoot debate it follows a predictable course:

a. Barefoot runner points out that Bikila won the Olympic Marathon in 1960 running barefoot, using it as evidence to show that a runner can compete at the highest levels without shoes.

b. Shod running proponent points out that he won it again in 1964 wearing shoes, and ran a considerably faster time, suggesting that wearing shoes made him faster.

The fact that Bikila won a marathon running barefoot doesn’t mean that everyone will be able to run faster if they throw their shoes away – we are all different, and what works for one may not work for others. Similarly, that fact that Bikila ran faster with shoes on in 1964 cannot be conclusively attributed to his wearing shoes (and this point was made, but seemingly never addressed, in that thread). Perhaps he was just a better runner in 1964 with four years of additional experience and a previous Olympic Marathon win under his belt. Maybe the course in Tokyo was faster than the course in Rome, maybe Bikila was pushed harder by his competitors, perhaps his pre-race preparation or in race fueling/hydration was better, or maybe the weather was more conducive to a fast race in 1964 (I have no idea on these points, I’m just throwing them out as possibilities). Perhaps his time would have been even faster if he was barefoot again in 1964. Point is, there are other variables besides the presence of shoes that could potentially explain his faster time in 1964. We can’t know most of these things now, so I wish people would stop trying to make too much out of the Bikila example.

6. Barefoot Running and Speed. Following off the Bikila point, another frequent point of argument is whether barefoot running actually makes you run faster or slower. Less weight on the foot should reduce the metabolic cost of running, yet we still don’t see elites running and/or winning races barefoot. This suggests that there are other factors that come into play when thinking about the relationship between footwear and speed.

For me, having tried running barefoot on asphalt a few times, I can attest that I run much slower when barefoot. In large part, this is because I have to constantly be on the lookout for debris that I might step on. Contrary to what people like Christopher McDougall might say, I have found that there is a lot of debris on the road and sidewalk, even if it’s just gravel and small stones. Stepping on a pebble when running barefoot hurts. Maybe my feet could toughen up to resist the pain, but quite frankly, I don’t want to invest the time running barefoot and feeling the pain simply to toughen up my feet to the point where it becomes less painful. Wearing shoes, even if minimalist, allows me to focus on running fast, and removes my need to constantly scan the ground for the next pebble that might send shooting pain through the sole of my foot. This is reason #1 why I have not enjoyed my barefoot running experiences.

7. Bias. Yes, Daniel Lieberman’s research is sponsored by Vibram. Yes, minimalist runners make money by promoting certain shoes (I advertise some of them on this site, and openly display my sponsorship via the BrooksID program). Yes, podiatrists make money in some cases by treating running injuries and prescribing orthotics. Yes, running magazines probably make good money from advertising dollars coming from shoe manufacturers. We all have our biases, and few of us are any less guilty of it than anyone else.

8. Anecdotes. One of my major problems with both sides in this debate is the reliance on anecdote to support claims. There’s an entire thread on the Podiatry Arena board attacking the Vibram Fivefingers shoes, and it essentially consists of individuals mining the internet for examples of people who have suffered stress fractures by running in the Fivefingers. If you look at barefoot running forums, you’ll probably find just as many anecdotes of people who have regained the ability to run pain-free either barefoot or in more minimalist shoes like the Fivefingers.

Yes, people can and do get hurt running in the Vibram Fivefingers. In many cases, this is simply because they do too much too soon (i.e., a poor training strategy and not necessarily the fault of the shoes) and don’t give their legs and feet proper time to adjust to the new forces being placed upon them. I’d venture to guess that if you spent a few hours on Google, you could find just as many people claiming to have had negative experiences in more traditional running shoes (how many runners do you know who wear regular running shoes and get injured each year – I suspect quite a lot). You could probably also do the same for people who claim injury due to custom orthotics. I suspect that some number of people will get injured no matter what they put on their feet (or don’t put on their feet for that matter), many of these due to poor training choices (speculating here), and many due to real anatomical/biomechanical problems. Until there are studies looking at injury rates in different shoe types, I don’t see these anecdotes as being helpful one way or the other.

At the end of the day, and given where the science currently stands, my take is this – wear what works for you. If you are wearing shoes and you like them, the data aren’t there to tell you to stop. If you are running in Vibram Fivefingers or barefoot and have not had any problems, there’s no evidence telling you that you should stop. The important point is to run, and enjoy the health benefits that it provides.

I probably will have more thoughts to come on this topic, but to avoid this becoming a dissertation length post, I’ll stop here for now and add an additional post if I feel the need to.

A few weeks ago I posted a slow-motion video of Ryan Hall from the 2010 Boston Marathon that was taken by a pair of my undergraduate students (thanks Erin and Daniella!). They headed down to Newton on Marathon Monday to watch and film portions the race, and as it turns out, they managed to capture some amazing slow-motion video of approximately the first 1000 runners to pass by near the 17 mile marker of the marathon. Below is a clip showing slow-motion video of the first six men to pass by the point where they were stationed. The video was filmed at 300 frames-per-second with a Casio Exilim EX-F1 digital camera (you can read my overview of the Casio EX-F1 here if you’re interested in the technology), so this is true high-speed video.

Elite Male Runners in Slow Motion – 2010 Boston Marathon from Runblogger on Vimeo.
Video clip of elite males running near mile 17 of the 2010 Boston Marathon. Video courtesy of https://runblogger.com.

The runners in the clip are (in order)

1. Cheruiyot, Robert Kiprono (KEN, finishing time = 2:05:52, finish = 1st)
2. Merga, Deriba (ETH, finishing time = 2:08:39, finish = 3rd)
3. Kebede, Tekeste (ETH, finishing time = 2:07:23, finish = 2nd)
4. Kigen Kipkosgei, Moses (KEN, red/green shirt, finishing time: 2:12:04, finish = 8th)
5. Goumri, Abderrahim (Morocco, purple shirt closer to carmera, DNF)
6. Keflezighi, Mebrahtom (USA, finishing time = 2:09:26, finish = 5th)

And here’s a version that is slowed down even further:

Elite Men in the 2010 Boston Marathon – Super Slow Motion from Runblogger on Vimeo.
Video clip of elite males running near mile 17 of the 2010 Boston Marathon. Video courtesy of https://runblogger.com.

And here below again is the clip of Ryan Hall (USA, finish time = 2:08:41, finish = 4th).

Ryan Hall – Boston Marathon 2010 from Runblogger on Vimeo.
Video clip of Ryan Hall running near mile 17 in the 2010 Boston Marathon. Video courtesy of https://runblogger.com.

Now, I make no claims of being an expert on running biomechanics, however, I have spent countless hours over the past few months analyzing slow-motion video of footstrikes (over 1500 of them!) for a project I have been working on with some of my undergraduate students. As you can see with these videos, even at 300fps it can be hard at times to classify very borderline cases, and doing so with a regular camera at 30fps would be near impossible – this is why I’m hesitant to trust many of the videos of elites that I see posted on sites like YouTube. At 30fps, the gaps between image frames of a fast moving subject are so great that the accurate classification of a split-second event like where the foot meets the ground is extremely difficult. Furthermore, this video is a snapshot from only a single spot in a single race, and I have seen footstrike to vary even within a person due to factors like fatigue, suspected injury, etc. That being said, I think we can glean at least a small amount of insight from these Boston videos, and since the discussion of which type footstrike is most efficient and least likely to cause injury is all the rage right now, here is my footstrike analysis of these six runners based on this video clip:

1. Cheruiyot: left = midfoot, right = midfoot
2. Merga: left = midfoot, right = obscured
3. Kebede: left = heel, right = midfoot
4. Kigen: left = mifoot, right = midfoot
5. Goumri: left = heel, right = heel
6. Keflezighi: left = heel, right = heel
7. Hall: left = midfoot, right = midfoot

Rather than write up my thoughts in paragraph form, I thought instead I would just share a few random musings that have entered my head upon watching this, and let you comment and provide additional insight as you see fit – I consider my comments section to be an open forum, but let’s not let this devolve into a petty argument over barefoot/shod running as seems to so often happen when the topic of footstrike comes up these days.

1. Most of the elites shown here (and these are some of the absolute best in the world right now) are midfoot strikers, but this pattern is not universal. Both the 2009 (Merga) and 2010 (Cheruiyot) Boston winners are midfoot strikers here, but the 2009 NYC Marathon winner (Meb) is a clear heel striker. Furthermore, Goumri, who entered the 2010 Boston Marathon with the fastest marathon time of any of these guys (2:05:30 in the London Marathon in 2008), is also a clear heel striker. So it would seem, at least based upon this small sample (and I have a lot more video to look at in the coming months), that you can run really fast for a really long distance with either a midfoot or a heel strike.

2. These guys are running very, very fast. All of them are likely running at a sub 5-minute mile pace in this clip. For frame of reference, Cheruiyot’s average pace was 4:48 min/mile for the full 26.2 – to me this is hard to even comprehend! Thus, it’s hard to know for sure whether the footstrike patterns observed here are more a function of speed than anything else, but the presence of two heel strikers seems to go against this argument. Regardless, it would be interesting to get another video of each of these elite marathoners running at a more pedestrian 8:00 or 9:00 per mile pace. Maybe I’ll film myself running at a 4:48 pace and see what I look like (and believe me, that will take some serious effort on my part, and it won’t be nearly as pretty as what you see here!).

3. Both Cheruiyot and Meb appear to be wearing the same shoe – looks like the Nike Zoom Streak 3, It’s interesting to see how strikingly different (no pun intended!) their landing patterns are despite the similar speed and shoe type.

4. It would be easy for some to suggest that Meb or Goumri could be faster if they altered their stride to land on the midfoot, but it is equally possible that this would throw them off their naturally most efficient gait and make them slower. It is these types of questions that science needs to begin to address.

5. As far as what makes these men such impressively fast marathoners, my suspicion is that footstrike is probably fairly insignificant. I’m sure they all have VO2max values that are through the roof, they can sustain paces a at a percentage of VO2max that is far higher than the average person, they have amazingly high lactate thresholds, a preponderence of slow-twitch fibers in their relevant running muscles, and are amazingly economical in their running biomechanics (i.e., outstanding running economy). In other words, all of these men are physiologically gifted in ways that most of us could only dream about, and that, moreso than what their feet are doing when they contact the ground, is what makes them so fast. We have a tendency as humans to focus on what we can easily observe, measure, and control, and footstrike is one of those things. However, the relative importance of footstrike when compared to these other factors is in my opinion questionable.

6. I have a lot more video to analyze in the coming months, and I just wrapped up analysis on a big project from another marathon – I’m hoping to get this published soon, so stay tuned for that. There’s still a lot of science on running that needs to be done, and there are a lot of questions waiting to be answered, so my hope is that videos like this will stimulate discussion and testable hypotheses. If you have anything you’d like to add to the discussion, feel free to leave a comment and/or share this video on your own blog – my only request would be that you link back here if you do.

“At Pearl Izumi, we don’t jog. We run. And we think that matters. The thing is, running is endangered. You might find this hard to believe. After all, the number of entrants in your local 10k is surely on the rise, and every Saturday the park is packed with people prancing around in brand-new trainers, trying to nurture their chi or look good for their wedding or whatever. Unfortunately, a few if any of them are running. They’re jogging, a half-hearted fore-aft movement of the legs that has about as much in common with running as bowling. And with all the jogging going on out there, runners are losing the soul of their sport. A sport that started with our ancestors running down dinner and remains to this day predatory at its core. Joggers are prey. Runners are hunters. If you belong to the latter group, revel in the fact that you sit firmly atop the bipedal locomotion foot chain. And run like an animal.“

The basic premise of the ad was that “Runners” and “Joggers” are two different groups or classes, with the former being the “truly dedicated,” and the latter being the “half-assed.” The ad was certainly controversial, and I still detest the elitist tone that it portrayed, but it was also thought provoking, and it was really a catalyst for me to evaluate and consider my own transformation from “jogger” to “runner.” While I have run in one form or another, on and off, for most of the past 20 years or so, I have only thought of myself as a “true” runner for about the past 3 years. This brings up an important question that’s very difficult for me to answer: How do you define the term “runner”? Does Pearl Izumi get it right? Are they completely off target? My goal below is to try to at least in some sense articulate my own answer to this question – I’m not sure I really have a good answer, but here goes.

When I think about how I have changed as a runner, and particularly the surprisingly abrupt transformation that occurred in May 2007, I think the primary difference from the “jogger” version of me to the “runner” version of me is one of desire. Whereas I used to run solely as a means of getting some exercise (because it was the “right” thing to do), often largely forcing myself to do so against my own will, I now run because I want to, or even because I have to. Running has become an incredibly important part of the person that I now am, and this was not the case prior to my transformation. Given this, I would tend to define the difference between a “jogger” and a “runner” as a difference between someone who runs because they feel they should, and someone who runs because they couldn’t imagine not doing so.

Being a “runner” is not about racing or fast times, it’s simply about running because you want to run, because you have to run. Whereas before I listened to loud music to help me survive the 20 minutes or so I would slog out on the road, I now wouldn’t think twice about running 26.2 miles with the only sound filling my ears being the footfalls of my fellow runners. This is what being a runner is all about – doing it because you love it, and not because you need to come up with ways to make it tolerable. That being said, where Pearl Izumi gets it wrong is by denigrating those who are “prancing around in brand-new trainers, trying to nurture their chi or look good for their wedding.” I respect anybody who gets out and exercises, whether they are doing so for the love of it or for the positive health benefits that it provides. There was a time when I was one of those people out “prancing around,” and I probably would not be the runner that I am today had I not gone through that phase. Being a “jogger” is not a bad thing, it’s just a different thing, and not something that should be ridiculed by a company that makes shoes to support that very activity.

One of the things that I have realized is that even among runners, goals and motivations vary dramatically. For example, barefoot runners celebrate their ability to participate in this most human of physical activities by taking it back to its most primal form – running the way our ancestors did on the plains of Africa. Other runners run to get outside and enjoy the simple happiness that comes along with being active. Yet other runners strap on high-tech shoes in an effort to shed a few seconds from their next 5K or minutes from their next marathon. Although we all run for slightly different reasons, and what motivates each of us to run is not always the same, at the end of the day we are all runners, and we all ultimately do what we do for the love of the sport. So the next time you see a jogger “prancing around” in the park on your run, give them a wave and a smile – who knows, they might just be a runner in training.

Last October I wrote a post on this blog about my personal story of weight loss achieved through running. In that post I mentioned a controversial article that was published in Time Magazine in early August of 2009 that questioned the efficacy of exercising to lose weight (“Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin,” by John Cloud). The basic premise of the article can be summed up by the final paragraph, quoted below:

“In short, it’s what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight. You should exercise to improve your health, but be warned: fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain. I love how exercise makes me feel, but tomorrow I might skip the VersaClimber — and skip the blueberry bar that is my usual postexercise reward.”

Reading this article made me angry, and not just because it was contrary to my own experience. I have seen many people who have made dramatic changes to their bodies and health by starting an exercise program, and any article that makes even the slightest suggestion that people skip exercise is ridiculous, and even borderline dangerous. My goal in this post is to provide examples of those who have used exercise as a tool to get healthy, and if you are just beginning this journey yourself, inspiration that if they can do it, you can too.

Over the past year I’ve become a huge fan of the website dailymile – it has served as a phenomenal source of support, motivation, and most of all friendship. About a week ago the theme for the day was Before/After photos – people were posting “Before” pictures of themselves before they started exercising, and “After” pictures to show how exercise has changed their health for the better. I have to say, the pictures and stories that were posted were amazing, and they reaffirmed to me more than ever the power of exercise to not only allow people to lose weight, but to in many cases contribute to a bodily transformation that is nothing short of astonishing. The pictures below are a sample of those posted on dailymile that day, and I hope that looking at them will confirm to you the positive benefits of exercise and a healthier lifestyle. You can view the dailymile profile of any of these people by clicking on the link below their photo – I’m quite sure any of them would happily accept a friend request, and all are great role models for the power of exercise to change one’s life.

 

  

 

 

 

Adam B. – dailymile Profile

 Bharani S. – dailymile Profile

 

So there you have it – everyday people like you and I who have done some absolutely amazing things for themselves by getting off the couch adopting an active lifestyle. So when articles like the one in Time Magazine say that exercise won’t make you thin, I have but one response – look at these pictures, they speak for themselves.

I’ll finish with this – all of these people are members of dailymile, which is an amazingly supportive community of like-minded people (kind of like Facebook for active people). If you’d like to give dailymile a try, click on the banner below and sign up – it’s free!

We all have our reasons for why we started to run.  For some of us, it’s the personal challenge of trying to accomplish a goal as seemingly impossible as completing a chosen race, whether it be as small scale as a local 5k or as large scale as a marathon.  For some of us, the motivation to run stems from a desire to get healthy – to change our bad personal habits and maybe set an example for our kids.  For others, there is a simple element of vanity – we’re unhappy with the possibly overweight person we see staring back at us in the mirror, and we feel the need to do something serious about it.  For me, the decision to become a runner involved all of these factors, but the ones I want to focus on here are the latter – running for health and weight loss, and yes, a touch of vanity.

A controversial article came out in Time Magazine in early August that questioned the efficacy of exercising to lose weight (“Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin,” by John Cloud). Reading this article was frustrating, because the argument it was trying to make ran contrary to my personal experience, as well as the experiences of so many that I have read about on-line and/or been told about in person. The basic premise of the article can be summed up by the final paragraph, quoted below:

“In short, it’s what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight. You should exercise to improve your health, but be warned: fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain. I love how exercise makes me feel, but tomorrow I might skip the VersaClimber — and skip the blueberry bar that is my usual postexercise reward.”

To me, any article that makes even the slightest suggestion that people skip exercise is ridiculous, and even borderline dangerous. Sure, there are times during my training when the workload that I put in is balanced out by the amount of food that I consume, and my weight remains more or less stationary. However, it generally only takes a small tweak to one or the other for the pounds to start coming off (or back on), and it can happen pretty quickly. The point I’m trying to make here is that exercise and diet are both important, and when it comes to weight loss, I truly believe that you can’t ignore one and focus solely on the other. To achieve lasting weight loss requires a combination of exercise and being conscious about your food intake. Stop exercising and you’ll probably gain weight. Keep exercising and dramatically increase food intake and you’ll probably gain weight. Decrease exercise and increase food intake and you’ll gain weight even faster (and who hasn’t experienced this during the winter holidays???). However, when you pay careful attention to both diet and exercise, it’s relatively easy to maintain weight or begin dropping off the pounds.  The point of this post isn’t to take apart the Time Magazine article (others have done this quite well – see episodes 140 and 141 of the excellent Fitness Rocks Podcast by Dr. Monte Ladner for example), but rather to tell a little of my own story and to direct you to the stories of others who have realized a dramatic personal transformation by adding exercise (in this case running) to their lives.

For me, one of the major impetuses for becoming a runner was a photograph.  It was May 2007, and I was at my college’s graduation ceremony (I teach in the Biology Dept.), and as is typical during such events, I had a number of pictures taken with graduating students.  In looking at some of them afterward, it became clear that I had really let myself slip – I was disgusted by what I saw (see picture at right – I never thought I’d post this!), and something needed to be done about it.

I had run on and off for several years, but never more than 2-3 miles at a time, and the one time I tried to run over 3 miles I nearly passed out.  Starting a new job and having 2 kids had eaten up my personal time, and exercise was one of the first things to go.  My weight was the highest it had ever been (pushing 190 lbs on my 5’10” frame), and I was largely sedentary.  I needed to change my habits, so I began to run, slowly at first, but in ever increasing amounts.  My wife and I made a pact that we would train for and run a 4-mile race in Maine that July, and train we did.  I began to increase my speed and distance, and successfully completed the 4-miler in 30:41, a pace of 7:40 min/mile.  After completing the race, I was hooked on running for good, and since then haven’t turned back.  In fact, I think there has been only one full week in the past 2.5 years where I have not run at all (due to illness), and most weeks I get in at least 20 miles (more than that lately).

My speed and distance increased dramatically with additional training, and I re-ran that same 4-mile race the following year in 26:04, a pace of 6:30 min/mile.  I’m not trying to toot my own horn here, but the pride that came with discovering a decent runner inside my formerly sedentary self was one of the primary factors that kept me going – I honestly didn’t know that I had the ability to do some of the things that I have done since those early days of running in 2007.  I now own a 5k PR of 18:51 (I struggled to pass the 21:00 3 mile test for varsity soccer in high school!), a half-marathon PR of 1:29:47, and have completed 3 full marathons with a personal best of 3:32:35.  Marathons 4 and 5 are set to be run in the next 3 months (Manchester, NH on Nov.1 and Disney in January).  If you had told me 2.5 years ago that these things could be possible for me, I would’ve said you were crazy.  The point I’m trying to make is that if I can do this, anyone can – I believe that we humans were meant to run, and all it takes is a bit of motivation and determination.  A simple photograph was enough to get me off of the couch and eventually running marathons – if that’s all it took for me, then maybe that’s all it would take for you.

Getting back to the topic of weight loss – my own weight now hovers around 170 lbs (high 160’s right now), which is about a 20 lb decrease from where I started.  There have been ups and downs for sure, but I’m in a good place now and I owe it all to running.  So when I read stories saying that exercise doesn’t lead to weight loss (like the Time article cited above), I just don’t buy it – my experience doesn’t support those reports. Here’s the side-by side for me (left = May 2007, right = October 2009):

Some might say that my story is anecdotal, that I’m just one data point that doesn’t fit the usual pattern, but I don’t buy that either.  My story is not unique – in fact, more often than not the runners I talk with on-line or in person share similar stories, and many of those are far more dramatic and inspirational than mine. With that, I’d like to share some of their stories, and provide further evidence that anyone can become a runner, and in the process realize a physical transformation that you might not otherwise think was possible. 

If you have a story that you’d like me to link to or share, please send me a link either via e-mail (use the Kontactr button below), by leaving a comment below, or via Twitter (I’m @oblinkin).  I look forward to reading your stories and sharing them here!

Stories of Transformation Due to Running:

Brian
Three and a half years ago, at the age of 42, Brian weighed 260 lbs and was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes.  Since then he’s lost 100 pounds, and keeps the weight off with running.  You can read his about his personal transformation at: http://unclebooboo.livejournal.com/72803.html.

Greg Chance (@gchance on Twitter)
In 2003, Greg weighed over 250 pounds. He started walking, then running, and has now lost over 60 lbs and completed his first full marathon in May 2009.  You can read his personal story here: http://gregchance.blogspot.com/2009/05/shall-we-get-autobiographical.html.  You can also read the report from his first marathon here.

Lacy Jaye Hansen (@lacyjhansen on Twitter)
Lacy used dieting to lose weight after her pregnancy in 2006, took it too far, and used running as a way to get herself back on track and eating healthier.  You can read her story here: http://blog.lacyjhansen.com/2009/06/running-lite.html

Jay Parker (@jayparker on Twitter)
Jay has lost about 35 pounds since becoming a runner – you can see his before and after pictures here: http://www.dailymile.com/people/jayparker/entries/542390. Amazing!

Steve Poling (@drpoling on Twitter) 
Steve became a runner in January 2009, has lost 50 lbs in the last ten months, and will be running his first marathon in December.  You can read his story on his brand-new running blog at: http://drpoling.blogspot.com/2009/10/transformed-or-why-i-keep-running.html.

Tanya Reynolds (@tanyamr on Twitter)
Tanya decided to get healthy in 2008, the year of her 40th birthday. Using a combination of diet and exercise, she has lost over 85 pounds since early 2008, and has become an avid runner. She states that it took her 8-9 months before she truly developed a love for running, but has been going strong ever since. You can read Tanya’s story at: http://tanyareynolds.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-story-how-i-lost-85-pounds.html.

Ever since I started to run in earnest, I’ve had a sense that running is something natural, something that we as humans are supposed to do. To a certain extent, this probably arises from my training as an anatomist/physiologist and evolutionary biologist. If you think about human history, our human body evolved under a very different set of conditions than it is exposed to today. Our bodies did not evolve in an environment where obtaining food simply required a drive to the nearest supermarket or fast-food restaurant. Rather, humans evolved from ape-like ancestors in an environment where food generally had to be either gathered, scavenged, or hunted, and thus physical traits that enhanced the ability to accomplish these food-gathering behaviors were critical to our survival as a species. Of these physical traits, being able to run was likely one of the most important – our ancestors had to be able to catch prey on the run and get to carcasses before they were scavenged by other animals.

Indeed, running is still a tradition in some native cultures, such as among the Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico. The Tarahumara are widely admired for their endurance running capabilities (a Men’s Health article titled “The Men Who Live Forever” details their athletic prowess), and a hunting tradition in the tribe is to chase a wild animal like a deer until it collapses from exhaustion, at which point it can be caught and killed. This type of hunting, called persistence hunting, is also practiced by some Kalahari bushmen in Africa (you can watch a video clip of a persistence hunt below; see also Liebenberg, 2006), and was described in detail in one of my favorite episodes of NPR’s This American Life. In this episode, Scott Carrier recounts his story of trying to catch a pronghorn antelope by running it down on foot. There was something raw and emotional in Carrier’s story that really struck a chord with me, and if you’re a runner of any kind it’s a great listen (and you can listen to it right now by clicking here). The book “Why We Run: A Natural History,” by Bernd Heinrich (see cover photo above), also describes persistence hunting (as part of the larger story of why he, and we, run), and the new book Born to Run by Christopher McDougall goes into detail on many of the subjects discussed in this post. Both of these are must reads for anyone interested in the science and evolution of running in humans. You can read my review of Born to Run here (which I read after writing this post).

Before I explain the evolutionary hypotheses in more detail, let me start by pointing out that we as humans are darned good endurance runners. In fact, we may just be the best among all mammals when it comes to endurance running. What we lack in speed, we more than make up for in our ability to run long distances at a slow, sustained pace. For this reason, we are one of the few species on earth that can actually complete a marathon. Take dogs for example – I frequently run with my black lab Jack. In a flat out sprint, Jack would blow me away (he spotted a deer behind our house this afternoon, and his sprint through the woods was a thing to behold). However, when I’m marathon training, I’m careful not to take him much more than 6-7 miles since he burns out after about that distance. Even in winter, there are times when we return from a run and he has to roll around in the snow just to cool down. Keep in mind, dogs are pretty good endurance runners as animals go, but we humans blow them away when it comes to running long distance (an possible exception might be the wolf). As another example, most people would hold horses up as a prime

example of an animal designed to go the distance. However, during the annual Man versus Horse Marathon in Wales, humans have defeated the fastest horse in the race on at least two recent occasions (see BBC News story), demonstrating that when it comes to endurance among mammals, we are right there at the top. Indeed, in a 2007 paper in the journal Sports Medicine titled “The Evolution of Marathon Running,” authors Daniel Lieberman (Harvard) and Dennis Bramble (University of Utah) report that “for marathon-length distances, humans can outrun almost all other mammals and can sometimes outrun even horses, especially when it is hot.”
So lets look at the the data supporting the hypothesis that humans evolved to be runners in a bit more detail. The logic according to Lieberman and Bramble (2007) goes something like this:

1. Our primate ancestors are not good runners. The reason for this is that their anatomy is more suited to life in the trees, and whereas chimps can sprint, they cannot do so for much more than 100m.

2. Fossil evidence shows that about 2 million years ago, our already bipedal ancestors began to exhibit anatomical traits that make for more efficient running (see list below, also see a Nature article by Bramble and Lieberman, 2004).

3. These anatomical changes appeared in association with the invasion of a new habitat and the appearance of new food-gathering tactics (i.e., a new niche in ecological parlance). Human ancestors were moving from the trees onto the ground, and we were becoming daytime hunters, with a penchant for eating meat. Fossil evidence (e.g., tooth characteristics) suggests that human ancestors began incorporating meat to a larger degree about 2.5 million years ago (this is not to say that chimps don’t eat some meat – they do). In order to get meat into the diet, we had to hunt and scavenge (and keep in mind that our earliest ancestors didn’t have stone-tipped spears, bows, or high-powered rifles and shotguns). Lieberman and Bramble (2007) cite a 2006 paper by John J. Shea from the Journal of Archaeological Science that indicates that stone-tipped spears didn’t appear until about 200,000 years ago, whereas bows have been around for only about the last 50,000 years. Thus, to kill an animal, we had to do it at close range, which means either ambushing them (which can be dangerous to the hunter) or chasing them down. We also had to compete with other carnivores and scavengers (think lions and hyenas) for limited resources in a hot, arid environment. This placed high emphasis on speed and endurance, as well as efficient heat regulation. End result = we as humans evolved to be outstanding runners, and what’s more, we can run efficiently for long distances in environmental conditions that would rapidly exhaust or could potentially even kill most other mammals.

So what is it about humans that makes us such good distance runners? What are the traits that separate us from our nearest relatives? Bramble and Lieberman (2004) and Lieberman and Bramble (2007) suggest the following:

1. Energetics – Humans have springy ligaments in the legs and feet (e.g., the Achilles tendon, the longitudinal arch of the foot, and the iliotibial tract are examples) that allow us to store energy during each footstrike and then release that energy like a spring on toe-off. Conversely, in African apes these tendons/ligaments are more poorly-developed or absent.

2. Stabilization – It is harder to stabilize the body while running than it is to do so while walking, especially in bipeds. Humans have unique anatomical characteristics that confer much greater stability while running. Among other things, these traits include a well-developed gluteus maximus that is mostly active while running (yes, big butts!), a narrow waist, mobile torso, and improvements in the inner ear that help us to better maintain balance.

3. Thermoregulation – As any runner knows, physical exertion generates body-heat. Because running is muscle-intensive, it generates much more heat than walking, and if we don’t get rid of that heat we can get into trouble (i.e., hyperthermia). One of the reasons why many mammals can’t go the distance is that they don’t have specializations to offload all of the heat produced while running. This is why my dog, Jack, can’t join me for a 20-mile marathon training run in the spring or summer. Humans, on the other hand, can run long in the heat (like on the African plains, or in the Badwater 135 Ultramarathon) because we are expert sweaters. We have no fur (well, most of us) to heat us up, and our sweat glands are densely and widely dispersed across the surface of our bodies. When we run, we sweat, often profusely. When we sweat, we cool down. We retain hair on places like our scalp to keep the brain warm and prevent skin cancer since the scalp is the portion of our body exposed to direct sunlight when we’re outside. The tradeoff here is that we humans lose a lot of salt and fluid when we’re active, which is why companies like Gatorade stay in business.

To summarize the logic of what’s above, I offer the following: We humans evolved to be hunters. To hunt without bows and guns we needed to run. In order to become more efficient hunters, we evolved anatomical and physiological traits that made us better runners. Now that hunting is no longer a necessity, our species for the most part has stopped running, but that absolutely does not mean that running is unnatural or dangerous. Rather, I would argue (strongly) that running is completely natural for humans, and that not running is in fact what is aberrant. Think about it for a minute or two and see if you agree.

Let me finish with a few thoughts. First – the next time someone tells you that running is unnatural, refer them to this post or to the work of the scientists cited here. Simply stated, we as humans evolved to run, and there is nothing more natural that we could do. Does this mean that running marathons every day is natural? Probably not. Does it mean that running a race like the Badwater 135 Ultramarathon is natural? Probably not. Does it mean that every modern human has a body suited to distance running? Probably not. What it does mean is that the next time you lace up your shoes for a run, you are simply celebrating our evolutionary history as a species, and doing something that we have been doing effectively for millions of years. In short, you are being a good animal, a good human. To look at this in one last way, I’ll quote the final paragraph of Lieberman and Bramble’s excellent 2007 article:

“In short, the human ability to run long distances, such as a marathon, is neither a simple byproduct of the ability to walk bipedally, nor a biologically aberrant behaviour. Instead, running has deep evolutionary roots. Although humans no longer need to run, the capacity and proclivity to run marathons is the modern manifestation of a uniquely human trait that helps make humans the way we are.“

How’s that for motivation.

Happy running!

Update 1/22/2010: I’ve now recorded a podcast on the topic of the evolution of distance running in humans.  You can check it out here: Runblogger Runcast #7: The Evolution of Distance Running in Humans.

If you agree that humans evolved to run, please spread the word:

Literature Cited:

In addition to the articles below, you can also follow this link to another post that provides a much longer list of popular articles, scholarly articles, and blog posts on the evolution of running in humans.

Bramble DM, Lieberman DE. 2004. Endurance running and the Evolution of Homo. Nature 432:345-352.

Liebenberg L. 2006. Persistence Hunting by Modern Hunter‐Gatherers. Current Anthropology 47(6):1017-1026.

Lieberman DE, Bramble DM. 2007. The evolution of marathon running capabilities in humans. Sports Med 37:288-90.

Shea JJ. 2006. The Origins of Lithic Projectile Point Technology: Evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. J. Arch. Sci. 33(6):823-846.

If you liked this post and want to learn more about why humans run so well and how we evolved to do so, I highly recommend the following books by Bernd Heinrich and Christopher McDougall:

With every running partner, there are always some quirks that you have to live with, and mine is no different. For example, he loves to swim but he hates puddles, and will stop dead if we encounter one on the road or trail (it’s particularly bad during spring snow-melt here in New Hampshire). This has resulted a number of times in me crashing into him, tripping, and landing in the puddle myself (soaked shoes are no fun when the temperature is in the 30’s). He also has problems keeping a steady pace, preferring rather to sprint ahead, stop, and wait for me to catch up while trail running (I guess he likes to fartlek). Perhaps the most annoying habit that my running partner has is that he can’t seem to understand that we would all be happier if he would take care of all bowel movements before we leave the house. No, he prefers to wait until about 1/4 mile into our runs, where he stops on a dime and relieves himself on the nearest patch of grass (a whole different kind of fartlek). As you can imagine, this is very embarrassing, and I imagine quite comical to watch if you happen to observe him doing his business and me standing nearby cursing under my breath while waiting for him to hurry and finish up.

Quirks aside, my running partner is as loyal as can be, and I’ll hopefully be running with him for years to come. His name is Jack (of the picture shown above), he’s a 90 pound black lab (composed of pure muscle), and he more than anyone else makes sure that I don’t skip out on my runs. For that, and although our relationship does have its rough patches, I will forever love him.

Some of my favorite posts: