Here’s an excerpt:

Phil: What first caught my eye in Tread Lightly was the way you examined the whole supination/pronation paradigm and found that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that it should be used as a means for shoe fitting. What spurred you to look at that critically?

Peter Larson: When I started running seriously five years ago, I went to a specialty running store and got fitted for shoes by having the [salespeople] watch me run across the store 10 feet. They said, “You’re a mild pronator – you should probably have some stability in your shoes.” I didn’t think anything about it at the time. I wore some variant of a stability shoe for about two years, and then I read Born to Run. That kind of got me wondering if there is really a lot of science behind this whole business. And I bought a pair of Nike Frees. That was kind of my first exploration with less shoe. I ran in them, and I was just amazed by how much lighter and more flexible they were.

The fact that I was able to run in them, even though I was told I needed a stability shoe, led to one thing after another and I came to find that there really isn’t a whole lot of good science supporting the whole paradigm that we should fit people based on how much they pronate. [Then] you get to talking to people like Jay Dicharry (who runs the SPEED Lab at the University of Virginia) and you find that arch height is pretty meaningless when it comes to fitting shoes because what the arch does when you run is very different than what it does when you stand.

You can read the full interview here, and there is much more detail on the pronation control shoe-fitting paradigm in Chapter 6 of my book.

Ah, the good old days of running.  Runners hear that line a lot, usually from those who started running in the 1960s and 1970s.  Was there really a golden age of running when runners seldom came up lame from an injury? Or is this a mere fiction, an invention or reordering of memory? By the same token, there’s that uncomfortable feeling that running injuries are a modern problem, a byproduct of cushioned shoes with lifted heels, and that runners in the stripped-down shoes of the earlier era were somehow immune to the injury bug. Unfortunately, the truth is not quite that simple.

In his 1935 book “Running,” Arthur Newton includes an entire chapter titled “Troubles.” In the opening paragraph of the chapter, Newton writes the following about running injuries:

“…real intensive training can produce an amazing crop, at any rate during the early stages. If you have nothing else to brag about you can admire the heterogeneous assortment of brand new and unexpected “aggranoyances” it showers promiscuously around. To hint at only a few… blisters, cramp, stitch, colds, uneasy joints, and sinews together with their accompanying holocaust of invigorated language…”

Clearly Newton was more than familiar with what it’s like to be an injured runner! It must be remembered, however, that Newton was also known to occasionally log well over 200 miles of running per week while in his 40s on rough South African roads – this type of mileage is likely to cause problems for anyone. Furthermore, despite his own masochistic mileage totals, he believed that running was less likely to cause injury compared to other athletic pursuits if “you indulge in moderation only.” A perceptive student of human behavior, Newton also addressed how to manage injuries, humorously reporting that there are “remedies which sportsmen have employed all along and which certainly work wonders… (a) grouse, and (b) persistence in regarding them as a joke.”

Running injuries are nothing new, which means that the shoe company giants can hardly be ascribed sole blame for the current plague of running woes. However, detailed accounts of injuries are difficult to come by prior to the 1970’s. It wasn’t until the early 1970s that more systematic documentation of running injuries became commonplace, and much of this early work came in the form of injury surveys conducted by a relatively new magazine (at the time) called Runner’s World.

In 1980, highly respected running biomechanist Peter Cavanagh (currently the Endowed Chair of Women’s Sports Medicine at the University of Washington) wrote a book titled The Running Shoe Book. In it, Cavanagh, who set up and directed the first shoe test lab for Runner’s World, cited the 1971 results of the magazine’s first reader survey of injuries. A total of 800 runners responded to the survey, and each reported the types of “major” foot and leg injuries they had sustained – “major” was defined as “requiring a complete layoff from running.” The five most common injuries reported were:

1. Knee injury (17.9%)

2. Achilles Tendon injury (14%)

3. Shin Splints (10.6%)

4. Arch injury (6.9%)

5. Ankle injury (6.4%)

Runner’s World’s survey was conducted again in 1973; 1,680 runners reported a total of 1,600 injuries (some runners reported more than one). The top five injuries were:

1. Knee injury (22.5%)

2. Achilles Tendon injury (20.3%)

3. Shin Splints (9.9%)

4. Forefoot injury (7.2%)

5. Heel injury (7.2%)

Cavanagh pointed out that “the shoes used by runners in the 1971-1973 period were lacking in what we now believe to be important protective characteristics,” and that shoes from this period “were heavy, thin under the forepart, lacking in shock absorption, and provided a relatively small differential in height between the heel and forefoot.” As an example of such a shoe, Cavanagh reports that the second most popular shoe in 1971 was the adidas Olympia, which weighed over 12 ounces and had a gum-rubber sole with no midsole or heel wedge.

Cavanagh went on to cite 1979 injury statistics for 974 runners provided by the Runners Clinic of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Massachusetts. The top five common injury types were:

1. Knee injury (30.5%),

2. Heel Spur Syndrome (includes plantar fasciitis; 13.5%)

3. Shin Splints (10.9%)

4. Muscle pulls (8%)

5. Achilles tendonitis (6%)

Cavanagh acknowledged the inherent limitations of the available data (for example, surveys vs. clinical data as well as injury terminology differences), but it was the best available data from that time period, and he made several interesting observations about how injury patterns changed from the early to late 1970s (a time when both running shoe design and runner demographics experienced dramatic changes).  Cavanagh noted that within the span of ten years, Achilles tendon injuries, metatarsal stress fractures, ankle injuries, and heel bone injuries became less common, whereas knee injuries, shin splints (he combined shin splints and posterior tibial tendonitis percentages for 1979 since he felt that earlier surveys probably included both of these under the category “shin splints”), heel spur syndrome, and leg fractures (mostly tibial and fibular stress fractures) became considerably more common.

Even though knee injuries were the most common injury in each of these studies, Cavanagh was particularly concerned about the rising incidence of knee injuries in 1979. What caused this spike? He speculated that “the combination of poor skeletal alignment and high mileage is going to play its part in knee injuries,” but also indicated that “we also have to examine the proposition, however unpalatable, that shoes, far from preventing injuries, have been partly responsible for them.”  How might this happen? Cavanagh felt that lifting and adding cushioning material under the heel might have helped alleviate Achilles tendon and heel injuries, but that a potential side effect of adding a heel wedge was “inferior rearfoot control.” In other words, excessive pronation, the inward roll of the foot that occurs after ground contact, might have been the culprit that was increasingly damaging runner’s knees as the decade progressed, and it might have been caused by the added elements in shoes that were put there in part to protect runners from Achilles tendon and foot problems

In addition to alterations in shoe construction and the shift in frequencies of injury types, the profile of the average runner changed significantly during this period. By the end of the 1970s, running had become far more of a mainstream pastime. Amby Burfoot, editor-at large for Runner’s World and winner of the 1968 Boston Marathon, says that the “1970 runner was leaner, meaner and faster than the 1980 runner… virtually all (1970) runners were those who continued (running) from high school, college, military service. They were more talented and more closely connected to recent high-level fitness.” In contrast, Burfoot points out that the average runner in 1980 was an individual “still in relative youth who picked up running after reading Jim Fixx’s book, and began training hard. They might have put in a lot of miles, but many were inherently not that talented as runners when compared to the average runner of 1970.” So the population of runners changed from mostly lifelong athletes to individuals who might have been joining the sport for the first time or who were returning to running later in life. Injury studies have shown that new runners are more likely to succumb to injury, so it’s quite possible that this demographic shift contributed to the changing nature of running injuries over the course of the decade; but to what extent is difficult to estimate with any degree of certainty.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the development of running shoes went from being mostly an ad hoc, improvisational, affair to one that was heavily influenced by emerging footwear science and research. “Running shoes came out of the dark age,” wrote Cavanagh, and shoe design as it relates to injury prevention became a topic of intense study by biomechanical researchers. One of the main concerns during this period was how to control excessive movement of the rearfoot, or what we now commonly refer to as “pronation control.” The logic went like this: if the raised, cushioned heel of running shoes compromised rearfoot control, and this in turn contributed to the rising incidence of knee injuries, then something needed to be done to stabilize shoes and correct for this.

Thus began the “pronation-control paradigm” that would guide shoe design for decades to follow. Shoes now required structural elements whose intended purpose was to limit the amount of pronation that occurred after the foot made contact with the ground, most often on the outer portion of the heel. The hope was that by keeping excessive pronation in check, the number of knee injuries experienced by runners would be reduced. Over the next 30 years, devices like medial posts, dual density midsoles, flared heels, and rigid heel counters were introduced in a continuing attempt to control potentially harmful movements of the foot that may have been caused by the construction of the shoe itself (mainly their soft, compressible midsoles). These are the very same elements that are found in many modern running shoes; in fact, level of pronation control continues to be the primary factor by which shoes are classified by manufacturers and in most stores today.

There is a lot more to say about the pronation-control paradigm, and we will cover it further in Chapter 6, but for now the most important question to address is this: what has been the effect of this added shoe technology on injuries?

You can read our attempt to answer this last question in Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear, and the Quest for Injury Free Running.

In the second chapter of his book, Cavanagh describes footwear history, as well as the history of running shoe up to 1980. One of the most interesting bits in the chapter is a description and photo of what Cavanagh believes to be the first specialized running shoes ever made. Here’s what he writes about it:

“One of the most exciting finds during my own search of museums was made in Northampton – the center of the British shoemaking industry from early times.

Beautifully made, and extremely well preserved, the shoe in Figure 2.7 was displayed in a glass case, labeled “Running Shoe – possibly belonged to Lord Spencer c. 1865.” It is likely that this shoe represents the earliest spiked running shoe made on a production basis.

——-

The Spencer shoe bears a definite relationship to early cricket shoes. The low cut design is of all leather construction but is nevertheless extremely light at 280 grams. There are three spikes under the forefoot and one under the heel, suggesting that the shoe was used as a distance running or cross-country shoe. It incorporates a broad toe band, which is a separate piece of leather, sewn into the welt of the shoe to add lateral stability.

My own view of the Spencer shoe is that it pinpoints the first branch in the evolution of running shoes. From 1865 on, specialized shoes for running turn away from street shoes to form their own line of evolution.”

What did the shoe look like? Below is the photo that Cavanagh includes in his book – looks like Bill Bowerman can’t be blamed for inventing the heeled running shoe after all!

Tread Lightly Website

My greatest amount of effort so far has been put into creating a website/blog to go along with the book. It contains resources and info for each chapter (which I hope to add to regularly), as well as links to abstracts and/or PDF’s of all of the scientific articles cited in the book. I plan to use the blog over there as a place to post additional content related to each chapter. You can check out the Tread Lightly website here.

Podcast Interviews

I’ve done a few podcast interviews over the past couple of weeks that involve discussions of Tread Lightly, here are three that might be of interest:

–Interview with the folks at Trail Runner Nation (Itunes Link) 
-Interview with Jason Kehl and Ray King of Geeks in Running Shoes Podcast 
–Interview with Chris Russell of the Run Run Live Podcast (Itunes Link)

I’ve got a few more podcasts in the works, so stay tuned on that front.

Initial Book Reviews

Fortunately, the book has been doing well so far, and initial reviews have been very positive. Reviews are incredibly helpful to us in getting the word out, so if you read the book, find it enjoyable, and want to help spread the word, a review on your personal blog or on Amazon would be hugely appreciated!

Here are a few examples of what people of diverse backgrounds are saying:

From Amby Burfoot on the Runner’s World Peak Performance Blog (full review link):

“…Tread Lightly will definitely go on my most important bookshelf, along with treasures like Lore of Running; Daniels’ Running Formula; Bernd Heinrich’s Why We Run; and Paul Milvy’s The Marathon, an astonishing collection of presentations from 1976.

Larson and Katovsky’s “Conclusion” chapter alone is worth the price of admission. Here they list their 13 key points. I’ll mention just my three favorites: 1) Runners will always get hurt; 2) There is not a single perfect shoe for all runners; and 3) There is no such thing as “perfect” running form. There may, however, be a best form for each runner and situation. That’s why you buy the book: To see if you can suss out your own best form.”

From Jason Robillard of the Barefoot Running University (full review link):

“The topics they discuss are the exact same topics I’ve been discussing with running store employees and podiatrists… and we’re closing in on some degree of agreement on some fundamental elements of running form. This book very well could be the book that triggers the tipping point I talk about frequently. It’s the single most sensible treatise on running form I’ve ever read.

This book should be required reading for anyone involved in the running industry…”

From Blaise Dubois, physiotherapist at Laval University in Quebec, Canada, consultant for the Canadian National Track and Field Team, and head of The Running Clinic website.

“Without being a health professional, his (Pete’s) passion for running brought him to write with impressive accuracy. His intelligence, his thinking ability and his scientific rigor make him one of the best critics I know about the prevention of running injuries. Therefore, I strongly recommend his book called “Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear, and the Quest for Injury-Free Running”, which I consider as the best book of the year! For beginners or experts, this book is a must-read. Loaded with knowledge, but being readable at the same time, it is definitely the one to buy in 2012!”

From Dr. Craig Payne, podiatrist and lecturer at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia; author of multiple scientific articles on foot health (full review link):

“Anyone involved in treating runners should have a copy. It reviews exactly what has been going on in the running shoe industry and the trend toward barefoot and minimalist running. It does not suffer from the usual rhetoric and propaganda that other books in this genre do. Its use of science and its interpretation puts the others to absolute shame. There is no hype. There is no rhetoric or promises. There is no second coming of the messiah! It is actually a really good book and well worth owning a copy.”

From Dr. Casey Kerrigan, former Chair of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the University of Virginia, author of 90+ scientific articles on human locomotion and gait, and current owner of OESH Footwear (full review link):

“Among things like running form and nutrition, the book debunks, in a nice systematic way, a number of long-held myths about traditional running shoe design. Pete…explains a number of findings from my studies on gait and footwear. He also highlights the continued work of my friend and former employee, Jay Dicharry, P.T., who, since I left, now runs the gait laboratory at the University of Virginia, which includes Jay’s now famous Speed Clinic.

The book reviews a number of scientific studies that elucidate the major flaws in traditional athletic shoe design; specifically foam cushioning and technologies that attempt to “control pronation.” In fact, there is an entire chapter, aptly titled “A pronation nation,” explaining how the long-held tradition of attempting to block pronation with arch supports and medial supports in shoes is not only ineffective, but in fact may be detrimental. For example, a study I did (with Jay Dicharry and others) in 2007 showed that even a tiny off-the-shelf arch cushion increases knee joint torque associated with knee osteoarthritis. The chapter supports what I’ve always said: we ALL pronate and for good reason – to protect our joints upward from the foot.”

In addition, the Kindle page for the book now includes a “Look Inside” sample which will allow you to read the preface and a portion of the introduction. The preface gives an overview of what the book is about, and the introduction consists of me and Bill telling our personal running stories and how we got interested in the topics of form and footwear. I like when a book reveals something about the author, and our goal with the intro was to let readers know a bit about who we are and why we decided to write the book.

You can view the Kindle page for Tread Lightly by clicking here.

I’m admittedly not much of a barefoot runner (pretty tough to do for about 4-5 months of the year up here in New Hampshire!), but have done it and enjoyed it on several occasions. Chapter 3 of Tread Lightly deals extensively with the topic of barefoot running, and it appears multiple times elsewhere in the book.

I wanted to share my answer to Samantha’s question here, and point you to the interview should you want to read more (lots of the questions focused on the health benefits of running in general, which I was happy about since the sport has really changed my life – just passed my five-year running anniversary!).

You can click here to read the entire interview on examiner.com, and my answer to the barefoot running question is below – it pretty well summarizes my current thoughts on the topic.

As always, if you have any thoughts of your own about the pros and cons of barefoot running, feel free to share in the comments section below!

SC: I read the chapter on barefoot running with particular interest because the practice has a small but growing (and avid) following. You wisely noted that barefoot running may not be totally practical in today’s modern world (e.g., stray hypodermic needle, impact of hard surfaces), but also suggest that many runners could benefit by incorporating some barefoot running into their routines. Can you elaborate on this?

 

PL: There are some very real risks associated with barefoot running, and stepping on something is one of them. However, I think the hypodermic needle issue gets overplayed a bit.

Running barefoot forces you to be really aware of where you place your feet, and as long as you use your eyes to scan the ground, the chances of stepping on something nasty are pretty low. I’m by no means a regular barefoot runner, but I’ve tried it a few times and have found it to be enjoyable under the right conditions.

The bigger risk for someone wanting to try barefoot running is that running without shoes forces you to change your form. For one thing, it will really work your calf muscles, and they can be very sore at the start. Second, the skin on your feet takes time to condition, and blistering is common among new barefoot runners. Third, the bones and connective tissues in your feet need time to strengthen to handle the different kinds of stress placed on them when shoes are removed. If you do too much too soon in bare feet it is possible to suffer injuries like stress fractures of the foot bones.

The benefit of barefoot running is that it removes all interference between your foot and the ground, and is thus a great way to feel your form. Your foot is a highly sensory structure, and it will tell you when you are doing something wrong. Though your form will adapt when you take off your shoes, the type of adaptations seen may not be the same in all people.

Some people will continue to land on their heels when they switch to barefoot (I’ve videotaped many runners doing this!), at least for a time, but most will shorten their stride, which can be of benefit in reducing forces applied to joints like the knees and hips. Furthermore, since people run differently when barefoot, it will work your leg and foot muscles in a different way. Some will get stronger as a result (e.g., your calf muscles).

However, if you go exclusively barefoot, other groups of muscles may de-condition somewhat (e.g., the muscles on the front of your shin). Different footwear (or lack thereof) will work your muscles in different ways.

I’ll add that barefoot does not need to be an all-or-nothing thing. Even doing small amounts of barefoot running can be of benefit – in fact, it’s a common practice among track and cross-country teams to do a bit of barefoot running in their training.

If you do decide to try it, it’s important to be very gradual and careful. Starting out with as little as a minute of barefoot running at a time is a wise approach. Listen to your body, and build from there. If anything feels painful, then ease back. It’s ok to mix barefoot in very slowly while running in regular shoes.

And if barefoot isn’t for you, trying out a very minimal shoe for occasional form or strengthening work is another approach. It won’t be the same as true barefoot, but it may be more practical for a lot of people. Once you get started by giving it a try, you can decide how big a part of your running repertoire it will become.

The article looks at the differences between heel striking and forefoot striking in terms of the forces applied to the foot and leg, and how these might relate to injury risk. The excerpt represents a small piece of a larger chapter on the broad topic of the running foot strike. And if nothing else, you’ll learn why a forefoot striker is like a monster truck!

Once again, to read Facts on Foot Strike, click here.

One of the topics we focused on quite a bit was foot strike, and I tried to make the point that a single-minded focus on foot strike may not be wise given that it is only one aspect of the overall running gait. I also wanted to make it clear that I do not believe that every runner must run solely on their forefoot, and that mild heel striking is likely just fine if other aspects of form are good. I worry that the recent intense focus on forefoot striking has runners forcing the issue and causing themselves more trouble than if they just left things alone.

Here is the link to the podcast on the Trail Runner Nation website: http://trailrunnernation.com/2012/05/heel-striking/

Here is the direct link to download the podcast from Itunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/dr.-peter-larson-so-youre/id484661268?i=115576192

Here is the link to directly download the audio file (right-click link and “Save As”): http://trailrunnernation.com/podpress_trac/web/6381/0/larson-heel-striker.mp3

I hope you enjoy the interview should you choose to listen! As always, comments are welcome!

I was originally planning to publish a few excerpts from my book, Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear, and the Quest for Injury-Free Running, prior to its June 1 release date. Well, the publisher moved faster than I expected, and the book is now in-stock at Amazon.com and should be on store shelves very soon (and yes, a Kindle edition is also in the works from what I have been told).

Despite this, I’ve decided to move on with publishing a few excerpts, and below is the first. The text is a sidebar from a chapter on the running stride titled “Should You Attempt to Run Like the Elites?” It discusses why caution is warranted when examining the running form of an elite runner and trying to apply it to yourself. Enjoy!

Should You Attempt to Run Like the Elites?

One approach to learning about good running form is to watch the elites – they run for a living and have spent more time fine-tuning their form than the vast majority of recreational runners. However, a few things should be kept in mind when trying to emulate the form of elite runners.

First, and most obviously, elite runners in a race are running very fast, and form changes with speed. It makes little sense for a recreational runner who puts in most of their miles at an 8:00 or 9:00 per mile pace to attempt to perfectly mimic the gait of an elite 10,000-meter specialist running at a sub-5:00 per mile pace. Most of us would be better off emulating the relaxed form they employ during their victory lap!

Second, form among elite runners is variable. Alberto Salazar, who won the Boston Marathon once and New York City Marathon three times in the early 1980’s, was widely believed to have succeeded despite his form rather than because of it. So even elites may not be perfect role models. Should the average runner mimic the head-bob of Paula Radcliffe? Probably not, even though she does happen to own the women’s marathon world record. Emil Zatopek was one of the greatest distance runners of all time. But here’s how New York Herald Tribune sports columnist Red Smith described his form: “He ran like a man with a noose around his neck…the most frightful horror spectacle since Frankenstein…on the verge of strangulation; his hatchet face was crimson; his tongue lolled out.” Another newspaper scribe wrote, “He ran as if his next step would be his last.” But Zatopek, a three-time gold medalist in the 1952 Helsinki Olympics, had a ready-made answer for his critics: “I shall learn to have a better style once they start judging races according to their beauty. So long as it’s a question of speed then my attention will be directed to seeing how fast I can cover the ground.”

There are many factors that make elites capable of throwing down times that the rest of us could only dream of – these include inherent aspects of their anatomy and physiology, training background, motivation, mental toughness, VO₂ max, capacity to endure pain, and so on. Form is just one part of the picture when it comes to elite running success, and it may be a very small part.

Taking this a step further, even if we take a group of elites who experts might classify as having “ideal” form, careful examination will reveal variation among them. Some carry their arms high, some carry them low. Some keep their torso upright, some lean forward a bit. Some spend a bit more time with both feet airborne, some stay closer to the ground. Some heel strike, some land on the midfoot, and others land on the forefoot. There are commonalities among elites that may suggest general patterns, but looking at any single elite’s running form as a model of absolute perfection that should be copied is a mistake. Running biomechanist Peter Cavanagh made this very point back in 1980 in the book The Sweet Spot in Time by John Jerome: “It doesn’t work, for instance, to tell the novice to imitate (Bill) Rodgers…running style, or performance in any sport, eventually boils down to the way you adapt to your own anatomy, your own physiology, to the peculiarities of your own body.”

The take-away message for all runners is that each of us is unique—and this applies to the recreational runner as well as the elite. Ultimately, the key is finding the best form for your individual body – whether that’s the form that lets you run fastest, most efficiently, or with least chance of injury, that decision is up to you.

You can read the excerpt here: http://naturalrunningcenter.com/2012/05/10/recreational-runner-excerpt-book-tread-lightly/

The article looks at the differences between heel striking and forefoot striking in terms of the forces applied to the foot and leg, and how these might relate to injury risk. The article provides a good example of the kind of content you will find in Tread Lightly, though this particular excerpt is a bit more on the technical side and represents a small piece of a larger chapter on the broad topic of the running foot strike. And if nothing else, you’ll learn why a forefoot striker is like a monster truck!

If you get a chance to take a look at the article, I’d love to hear what you think – it’s not available on-line yet, but I will post an alert when it is.

Also, here’s the obligatory plug – if you’d like to pre-order my book, you can do so on Amazon.com.

Bill’s initial idea was for me to write the book and he would serve as editor and agent (which he has done for several books by Phil Maffetone), but in our conversations we came up with a concept that was going to be more than I could handle on my own given time constraints associated with my day job and being a father of three little kids. So, we agreed to co-author a book and divided up the topics that we wanted to hit upon. After a sometimes grueling process (as I hear any book-writing experience can be), Bill and I finally finished our book last month (which involved a marathon editing session while I was on vacation with my family in Disney World!).

The end product of our labors is a book titled Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear and the Quest for Injury-Free Running. The content will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog (or Bill’s Zero Drop blog). We basically address the question of why modern runners so often get hurt. We don’t pretend to provide an answer that will “cure” running injuries, but we do take what we feel is a fairly balanced look at topic as it relates to form, footwear, and food (and much more). This is by no means a barefoot running book (far from it!), or even necessarily a minimalist running book. Rather, it is a book that attempts to look at how modern humans differ from our running ancestors, what both history and modern science tell us about form, footwear, and injuries, and how this knowledge might be applied to reduce your chances of getting hurt. A lot of the questions we address still have incomplete answers, but our hope is that our writing will stimulate continued thought, research, experimentation and discussion.

Over the coming weeks you will hear more about this book, and I’ll likely post a few excerpts leading up to the official release date (June 1 according to Amazon, but could be a few weeks earlier if the current schedule holds. For now, I’ll provide the chapter titles to give you a feel for the breadth of topics that we cover:

Introduction – Pete’s Story and Bill’s Story

Chapter 1 – The Evolution of Running in Humans

Chapter 2 – Running Injuries: Why They Happen

Chapter 3 – Barefoot and Running

Chapter 4 – The Running Shoe

Chapter 5 – The Recreational Runner

Chapter 6 – Pronate Nation

Chapter 7 – Foot Strike

Chapter 8 – The Running Stride

Chapter 9 – Turning the Clock Back on Nutrition

If you are interested in pre-ordering a copy of Tread Lightly, you can do so on Amazon.com. I don’t have official confirmation that a Kindle version will be released, but I assume that this will happen (I read most books on the Kindle app on the Iphone these days, so I plan to push for it). If you’d like to help this process along, you can go to the Amazon page for Tread Lightly and click on the “Tell the Publisher: I’d like to read this book on Kindle” link just below the cover photo.

Thanks to all of you who read this blog and have offered your support over the past few years – I owe much of the thought process that led to the book’s evolution to discussions that I have had here!

Below are the front and back covers of Tread Lightly: