The barefoot running controversy has gone global. In India, which has about 1.2 billion people (three times the population of the U.S.), running is gaining popularity fast, thanks in large part to the writing of runner/physician Rajat Chauhan. Dr. Chauhan writes for Mint, the Indian affiliate of the Wall Street Journal, which recently interviewed me for a special feature on running form. Here are their somewhat provocative questions, and my responses:
1) The running world seems to be divided
into two bitter groups – the barefoot exponents and those who warn that shoes
should never be taken off? Would it be fair to say that the right path is
somewhere down the middle?
Research by evolutionary biologists Daniel
Lieberman, Dennis Bramble, and David Carrier and their colleagues finds that
humans evolved as barefoot “persistence hunters,” and their findings have led
to a romanticizing of barefoot running.
However, 10,000 years of civilization have changed us. Personally, I could not run without good
running shoes—not flimsy sandals or “minimalist” models, but shoes that are
fairly sturdy and protective. When I ran
the 50-mile JFK 50-Mile (America
2) I read somewhere that the barefoot
running revival is happening for the fourth time in the last few decades. Can
you throw some light on this as a runner who has been competing for the last 55
years?
Several decades ago, serious long-distance
runners began competing in “racing shoes”—much lighter shoes than the shoes we
trained in. A model called the “Nike
Sock Racer” was little more than a sock!
I tried running a marathon in one of those models, and by the time I
reached the finish the bottoms of my feet felt as if they were on fire. For anyone who needs some pronation control
(a majority of us, I think), it’s better to run races in the same supportive shoes
you train in. Yes, you’re carrying a bit
more weight, but you’re also running with better biomechanical control, which
is more energy-efficient. Elite runners
who have flawless biomechanics and light body weight can (and do) run
successfully with ultra-lightweight shoes.
3) How do footwear and running form
contribute to running injuries? Can you share any examples of balanced research
you have come across on this topic?
The links between footwear and vulnerability
to injury are hugely complex, so I’m a bit skeptical about some of the
findings. I think the book “Born to Run”
was just plain wrong in its suggestion that Nike’s development of the modern
running shoe caused countless injuries.
Even if solid correlations were found (and I’m not sure they were),
correlation is not causation. Today’s
runners may have more injuries than yesteryear’s, but I also have the
impression that today’s runners more often take training shortcuts like trying
to run a marathon within the first 6 months after taking up the sport. (Half a century ago, we believed you
shouldn’t run a marathon until you’ve been practicing at shorter distances for
several years at least, and I think that’s still sound advice.)
4) What is your position on the
forefoot/heel strike debate?
Most long-distance
runners naturally touch down on their heels.
Sprinters land on their forefeet.
Forefoot running yields greater power, so you’d be unlikely to succeed
as a sprinter or 400-meter runner if you land on your heels. But heel strike is more energy-efficient, and
that’s a big factor in long-distance running.
Running with maximum power burns more energy, but for a short distances
that doesn’t matter, just as it wouldn’t matter to the driver of a drag-race
car if his engine burned 5 gallons per mile!
Elite runners at distances up to about 1500 or even 5000 meters tend to
be forefoot strikers for this reason—power and speed are the name of the
game. Ultrarunners are nearly all heel
strikers. At distances in between,
you’ll see both kinds of heel strike succeeding.
5) Another topic that seems to be going
around in the running community is stride rate and over striding. What are your
thoughts on this issue?
I’ve struggled with
this issue, especially as I’ve gotten older and my natural stride length seems
to have shortened. I do have the
impression (from both personal experience and observation of others) that
over-striding is a common mistake because it burns too much energy and
interferes with the natural rhythms of the body. Top coaches and runners have always
emphasized the importance of finding the right rhythm—or as athletes in other
sports put it, the “groove.” As for
stride rate, I’ve heard of the argument that the rate should be around 180
strides per minute (3 per second) even over varying distances and speeds, so
that running slower entails taking shorter strides rather than slowing the
tempo, and running faster entails taking longer strides but keeping the tempo
fairly constant. I’ve played with this
idea in my training, and I think it makes sense.
6) Is running form/technique by itself a
panacea for all injuries? For instance, isn’t trading heel strike for
forefoot impact just shifting the likelihood of injuries from knee to ankle?
What other factors should runners keep in mind?
No, form is not a panacea. Funny thing, when I first started writing
about running nearly 40 years ago, I liked to say that one of the great appeals
of the sport is its simplicity. But in
its biomechanics and physiology, it is dauntingly complex! Form alone is complex, but there are many
other kinds of factors affecting the risk of injury: overtraining (too many miles per week), too
much speed work, poorly-fitting shoes, etc.
Regarding the forefoot-vs-heel-strike issue, I think each individual
needs to find what feels most natural.
And regarding form in general, there are some basic rules: Run
vertically with your center of gravity over your feet. I’ve seen people jogging with their legs out
in front and their upper body leaning forward to keep balance, but with the
butt hanging behind as if it doesn’t really want to go along for the ride. I call this “C-shape” running, and anyone who
does it isn’t likely to enjoy the sport for long.
7) Which are the frontiers to be explored
when it comes to research in running biomechanics?
I haven’t kept up with
the science, and in recent years have focused mainly on my own “experiment of
one.” (I’m in my 56th consecutive year of running now, and fending
off the injuries is definitely more of a challenge.) I’d be very interested in seeing more study
of the “tempo” issue—stride length and frequency. My sense is that the received wisdom on this
may be a little too simplistic. I’d also
like to see more work done on the form changes that take place with
ageing. If getting older necessarily
means losing muscle mass and oxygen uptake capacity, are there ways that the
older runner can modify his or her biomechanics to compensate somewhat?
8) What are the biggest myths that exist
around “running form” or the science of running?
The idea that barefoot running will free
you from injury is a myth. I say this
with reluctance, because the science says we evolved as barefoot long-distance
runners, and I like the idea of getting closer to my ancestral roots. But early humans also chased down lions or
aurochs with spears, and I don’t think many people are itching to get back to
that. In some respects, civilization is
a one-way road. And the roads we travel
in the civilized world have hard pavement (ancient feet didn’t have to run on
that), glass shards, trash, etc. The
floors we walk on are hard and smooth. Maybe
running barefoot works for rural Kenyan kids who grow up barefoot and have
access to uncluttered dirt trails, but for people who’ve grown up in cities,
wearing shoes, bare feet is a romance that won’t last. Maybe if a city park has a groomed trail of
pine needles or wood chips, barefoot running on that trail might provide a
limited form of enjoyment. But on public
roads or rural trails with rocks and roots . . . no.
9) Can you also share examples of
interesting recent research around running technique that you may have come
across recently?
Others will be able to answer this
question better than I. The best
research I can cite is that of professors Daniel Lieberman at Harvard and
Dennis Bramble and David Carrier at the University of Utah
10.To conclude, what would be your definition of correct
running form?
I don’t know whether
there’s a “correct” form that’s right for everyone. Our running forms vary as much as our faces
or personalities do. But in general, the
ideal form for a given person is that which feels easiest and most rhythmic
when kept up for the desired distance and speed.
No comments:
Post a Comment