I get the sense that most people equate the phrase natural running with barefoot running, or at least running with a form similar to that which you would adopt when barefoot (shorter stride, increased cadence, more plantarflexed foot at contact, generally a reduced impact transient if not heel striking, etc.). I largely agree with this definition. However, I think there’s a bit more to it than this.

Though barefoot running form has certain general elements that characterize it, it’s not something that can be defined concretely. There is no single barefoot running form, and thus there is no single natural running form that applies in all circumstances for all people.

Understanding what natural running means is further complicated by the fact that it’s become increasingly common for barefoot and natural running to be equated with forefoot striking alone, whether that is the intended message of those teaching natural running form or not. Sometimes a 180 cadence and forward lean are tied in, but I’m not going to go there in this post or I’ll never stop writing…

The reality is that running form is highly variable, and is largely dependent on an individual runner’s body and the conditions in which they are running (things like speed, surface, incline/decline, etc.). This applies even to foot strike. For barefoot runners, things will change depending on speed, surface, etc. There are habitual barefoot runners that forefoot strike, there are habitually barefoot people who heel strike when they run on softer surfaces. There are barefoot runners who heel strike on asphalt (and I have seen some very experienced barefoot runners making initial contact on the heel while running on asphalt). Most shod runners probably forefoot strike running uphill, and heel strike on the flats and downs.

In fact, when it comes to foot strike, Prof. Daniel Lieberman of Harvard emphasized variation when I interviewed him for my book. He said:

“I think everybody does everything. This idea that you’re just a forefoot striker, or just a midfoot striker, just a heel striker is bizarre. Variation is what biology is all about – everybody does everything! I think barefoot runners heel strike sometimes, of course they do. I don’t think they do it all the time. It’s speed dependent, terrain dependent, warm up dependent, etc.”

Let’s take a look at  a few videos from the 2011 NYC Barefoot run to further emphasize this point. When we think about natural running form, we tend to think of something that looks like this – short stride, forefoot strike, vertical shin at contact, etc.:

But, sometimes, barefoot running form on asphalt looks like the video below – is this natural running form?

How about this clip, which of these runners is exhibiting natural running form?

To a certain extent, I’d argue that all of the barefoot runners in the above videos are using natural running form. They are using the form that is working for them in their current situation, with zero assistance from footwear or other technology. That’s really how I would define natural running. It’s not some ideal, archetypal running form, it’s what happens when you let your own body figure out what works best for you when you minimize interference between the foot and the ground. It’s what happens when you let your own muscles, ligaments, tendons, and bones do all or most of the work. It will vary depending on the type of ground under your feet, how fast you’re running, and so forth. It could hurt you – just because it’s “natural” does not necessarily mean that it’s always good. It could also help you – some people have overcome chronic injury by going “natural.” It’s a form employed by you, not necessarily a form employed by all. And your natural running form can change with time and practice. It might reach a comfortable steady state, or it might continue to change in small ways.

The last point is an important one. The form employed by the barefoot runners in the videos above is their current “natural form” while running easy on asphalt, but it may not be the “best” form that they could be using given the situation. If they are inexperienced, their form may change over time as they continue to practice. There may be some residual baggage in the form of ingrained motor patterns from running “un-naturally” with the assistance of footwear for many years (and yes, for good or for bad, I absolutely believe that shoes, even minimal shoes, change the way we run). Practice may be a required element to finding one’s natural running form.

It’s worth considering, however, that given that the individuals in the above videos came to a barefoot running event (some traveled a long distance to attend), we might assume that they have at least some experience running barefoot. Furthermore, unless they jumped in after the race started, these videos are taken of people running a second loop around Governor’s Island (i.e., they had already run a few miles on asphalt). Maybe heel striking is “natural” for them.

Now that these videos are posted on-line, I fully expect the usual slew of YouTube comments telling the heel strikers that they’re idiots and they might die if they keep running that way. Will they break their calcaneus? Maybe, maybe not. Most are running with other hallmarks of barefoot running form – short stride, bent knee, etc., and we can’t tell what the forces acting upon them at contact look like from a video. If they are highly experienced barefoot runners without an injury history, I’d probably just tell them to keep doing what their doing. Embrace the heel strike! Their natural running form is working just fine. If they are inexperienced, some advice or coaching might help them along the way to undoing their neurological baggage and finding their natural form without getting hurt.

As a final point I’ll say that “unnatural” isn’t necessarily bad. I run the vast majority of my miles in cushioned shoes. I’m pretty sure my form would change a bit if I ran regularly barefoot. But, I haven’t been injured seriously in 6+ years of regular running, and I’ve never missed a target race due to a running related injury, so I’m not too concerned about my form. My wife has found that the only shoes she can run in without foot pain are Hokas. Sometimes a bit of help from a shoe can keep you going, and there’s no shame in that.

How about you, how would you define natural running?

However, I had high hopes for the other two shoes in the adipure line: the adidas adipure Gazelle in particular looked like my kind of shoe. Last week adidas sent me a pair of the Gazelles to try out(disclosure: these were free samples for review purposes), and my overall experience so far has been phenomenal.

I’ve run two solid runs in the Gazelles, one a 10 mile interval workout, and the other a 7 mile easy run, both on asphalt (Update: now have 50+ miles on these and still loving them, durability has been great so far). The feel underfoot is very similar to the Adapts, so I feel pretty comfortable commenting on them even with limited mileage (and I couldn’t wait, loving this shoe too much!).

My first thought upon putting the Gazelles on my feet was the they were insanely comfortable. The footbed is glued down (but removable with some effort) and lightly cushioned, and feels great under a bare foot. But, where this shoe really shines is the upper. It’s made of the same stretchy, spandexy (is that a word?) material that composes the entire upper of the Adapt, and is extremely comfortable against the foot (feels kinda like a stretchy sock). There are, however, a number of differences between the uppers of the Gazelle and the Adapt. Obviously, the big difference is that the Gazelle has laces and a more traditional ankle cuff. The laces attach to the adidas stripes on each side, and this combination alone makes this look much more like a running shoe than the Adapt – I really like the look of the Gazelles.

The other big difference between the uppers of the Gazelle and Adapt is that the latter fits very tight. In  photos of the Adapt (e.g., at left), you’ll note that it’s almost always curled up from front to back. This is because the tight stretch of the upper pulls up on the front and back of the sole. I’m sure the reason for this is that it keeps the shoe securely attached to the foot since there are no laces, but I much prefer the fit of the lace-up Gazelle. The heel and midfoot fit snugly, and the forefoot of the Gazelle is spacious – there is much more give to the Gazelle upper in the forefoot compared to the Adapt(very easy to wiggle your toes around and up-down). The Gazelle also feels like it may run a bit longer than the Adapt, but I wear the same size 10 as I do in most other shoes.

As I mentioned above, the sole of the Gazelle feels very similar to that of the Adapt. Sole dimensions listed on Running Warehouse are 17mm heel, 11mm forefoot, and overall shoe weight for my size 10 is about 6oz (measured on my scale).

The sole feels incredibly good on the run – perfect softness for my taste, and it feels much less than 6mm drop. I’ve come to realize that the same drop in two shoes can feel very different depending on stack height, firmness, and so forth (a post on this coming soon I hope), and this one hits my sweet spot. The other thing I really like about the Gazelle sole is that it’s flexible longitudinally, from side to side, and torsionally – it moves really well with the foot and provides a really smooth transition from lateral to medial in a midfoot-forefoot landing. I expect that sole durability will be quite good given the amount of rubber present for such a light shoe – the lateral forefoot is well protected, as is the heel (that white patch on the heel is actually rubber) which should help light heel strikers and those who plan to walk around in the shoes (you be hard pressed not to wear them all day – they are that ridiculously comfortable).

If I have one complaint about the shoe, it’s that I can feel the stitching that attaches the stripes to the upper under my arch on one side. I was initially really concerned that this would dig into my skin and either rub it raw or cause a blister. However, it has not been an issue on the run, and it would be fairly easy to remove the offending stitch row without compromising the structure of the shoe.

If I had to compare the adidas Gazelle to another shoe, the closest I could come up with is the Saucony Hattori LC. Both are crazy comfortable shoes with a stretch upper, and both feel great on the run. If it weren’t for the hot spots I get in the Hattori’s under the balls behind my big toes I’d have a really tough time recommending one over the other, but given that issue for me the Gazelles are the more versatile shoe. Both are fantastic for walk around use and short runs, but I can do ten miles in the Gazelles (including speed work) with no problems and that tips the scales.

So, I highly recommend the adidas Gazelle – they have a real winner with this shoe!

The adidas Gazelle is available at Running Warehouse.

Why do I say this? Well, last Friday evening Mark organized a public panel discussion on natural running at a local hotel called the Bavarian Inn. The panelists were many and varied, and I was thankful for the opportunity to participate, but I was a bit curious about how many people might show up to such an event in rural West Virginia. Were the panelists going to outnumber the audience??? Hardly.

I actually arrived at the Inn a bit late and entered the conference room just as the event was getting under way (we had gone for a group run, so a valid excuse!). To my surprise, the event was packed (see photo below of a portion of the crowd). Standing room only. A crowd of 150+ people had come, and another 50 or so had to be turned away due to the lack of space in the facility. I couldn’t believe it – here we were in a state renowned for it’s inactivity, and I had to weave my way through a crowd of people who were squeezing into a room like sardines in order to take my place on the panel.

As I stood in the front of the room waiting for my turn to speak, I did what any shoe geek does – I looked at what people had on their feet. Never have I been in a place where so many people were wearing minimalist and barefoot style shoes. When I had my chance to talk I spoke about kid’s shoes for a bit – encouraging the production of better shoe options for kids is one of my personal missions. And the amazing thing was that the crowd responded in knowing agreement – heads were nodding, the audience understood.

Why is this? Why is it that I can get into debates with sensible people about why kids shouldn’t be wearing mini motion control shoes, but here in rural WV people get it? Why did a large crowd navigate snowy roads on a Friday night to hear a panel talk about the benefits of natural running? Why did people (Dr. Craig Richards) fly in from as far away as Australia to speak on the panel?
The answer is really quite simple – Dr. Mark Cucuzzella. What Mark has accomplished in Shepherdstown is nothing short of remarkable. He has turned a small town in an obese state into a running-crazed bastion of health. He has opened a minimalist shoe store, TR Treads, in the heart of the town. He has given away free healthy shoes for kids, he has organized races, and he has encouraged the population to get active. Mark’s effort in transforming Shepherdstown is a testament to what a single person can accomplish given the combination of a tireless work ethic and strong convictions. He believes in the value of exercise, he believes in the value of healthy shoes, and he is the reason why I and others were there on that panel last Friday night.

In the coming days I will be writing a lot about what I learned and experienced in Shepherdstown, and to be quite honest the experience was nothing short of amazing. But first I wanted to thank Mark for what he has done for his community and what he has done to bring like-minded people with big ideas together. Shepherdstownis lucky to have a guy like Mark inspiring a lifestyle of health and wellness, and the community of runners is lucky to have him as an ambassador. Thanks Mark!