Barefoot VS Insoles, what's the science?

cormie

Someone was talking to me about trying to find a suitable pair of runners and that they couldn't find any ones they liked. I remembered looking into barefoot running before and that it can be more beneficial than conventional runners. They then said they needed an insole and after a quick Google of barefoot vs insoles, as from what I remembered barefoot running relinquishes the need for insoles, there seems to be a few claims that barefoot running has no science behind it and no peer reviewed studies and it's just quackery and no better than snake oil.

Of course any of these sites and comments could have orthotic interest behind them and then any of the claims for barefoot running could have barefoot interest behind them. So hoping for some independent study and research to see if it is actually of benefit

Any feedback would be great!

Murph_D

As a natural sceptic, I find this site useful.

cormie

Oooph, that's a lot of reading but seems from what I've read so far there's no real evidence to back up any claims that barefoot running is best?

Funny because there was a lot of support for it here when I posted previously...

iAcesHigh

my 2 cents... Essentially, from what I gathered online and with talks with other runners, coaches and my physio (whom I really trust) barefoot running is great for foot IF you know how to 1. walk barefoot (most people don't) and 2. run barefoot (even less people). The thing with barefoot running and why it works for African runners (who are mostly mentioned as an example why that barefoot running is good for you) is because they run barefoot since they are children. They don't sit at computers, their feet aren't used to comfy shoes and they run solely on soft ground. Western world, on the other hand, is used to all this comforts and then, as 30 year olds we simply decide that we don't need shoes and start pounding with our feet without any support? Doesn't seem like a good idea...

I do on the other hand see the benefits you get (strengthening your muscles and "getting" a better "feel" in my feet) so I don't think walking barefoot, or even running once in a while for SMALL distances wouldn't be benefitial (especially on the beach with cocktail in my hand ), but I wouldn't go ahead and just switch to barefoot running just because "it kind off makes sense on first" before you think/ask a bit more about it...

Krusty_Clown

cormie wrote: »

Funny because there was a lot of support for it here when I posted previously...

Maybe all those barefoot supporters have given up running?

While there are still some proponents, it was largely a fad, triggered by a popular running book at the time. I still take the shoes off very occasionally and go for a trot around a field in the local park, but wouldn't dream of running on anything other than 'known grass', and wouldn't consider buying a pair of oxymoronic 'barefoot shoes'. Wouldn't wear orthotics either, for that matter.

If I were you, I'd just get out and run. Stop complicating the process. It's just putting one foot in front of the other, at faster than walking pace.

RayCun

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

It's just putting one foot in front of the other, at faster than walking pace.

Don't forget to land on your midfoot, underneath your body.
And pick those heels up.
Darwin gave you arms for a reason, use them too!
Why are you looking at the ground, it isn't going anywhere, lift your head
Your hips... sweet jesus your hips...


:pac:

jamule

Just get out and run and find out what you like/don't like. We are all different, our bodies are all different. What works for one person may injure another. While there is alot of work done with the science of behind barefoot/cushioning/insoles the results are ambivalent at best, its a bit like universe, we still know fook all!

I have ran barefoot since I was young (not much choice back in the 80s!) , I would still stick to 'known grass'. I am most comfortable doing fast work on summer grass but I hate running barefoot in wet/mud, stick to spikes. I have ran barefoot on the roads but its pointless because we have shoes that are more comfortable on the road.

As Krusty said, one foot in front of the other and enjoy!

cormie

Thanks folks. This was mostly advice for the daughter of someone else who has to wear insoles and is only 12 years old. I think most of the running she does would be on school fields (grass I think) or maybe on tracks. Are you all in agreement that it's largely ok and could be more beneficial than conventional running shoes to use barefoot on grass or soft ground and omit the need for insoles and that it could be more beneficial than conventional shoes to walk in on any type of ground?

Personally as someone with little running experience, I'd be very slow to go barefoot on concrete and would try stick to soft grass and ground or hard sand.

I did get this pair for myself based on a previous thread here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B008B11TAK/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_22?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2UTVQMSXN98SD

They seem to be an intermediate between conventional and barefoot.

Is Vibram only associated with bare foot soles and not suitable for anything on concrete I wonder?

Krusty_Clown

cormie wrote: »

Thanks folks. This was mostly advice for the daughter of someone else who has to wear insoles and is only 12 years old. I think most of the running she does would be on school fields (grass I think) or maybe on tracks.

Without wanting to come across as rude (not my intention), I don't think you should be providing advice for someone else's 12 year old. Better to re-direct them to a running shoe specialist store (e.g. RunHub, Amphibian King). You certainly should not be advocating an approach based on your own barefoot/minimalist experience or consensus reached on an internet thread.

cormie wrote:

Are you all in agreement that it's largely ok and could be more beneficial than conventional running shoes to use barefoot on grass or soft ground and omit the need for insoles and that it could be more beneficial than conventional shoes to walk in on any type of ground?

No. Not in agreement at all. Please don't draw conclusions from soundbites on an internet thread. Best just to steer clear.

cormie

Oh definitely not, as soon as I searched Google for barefoot vs insoles and saw a divided opinion, I posted the thread asking if anyone knew the science and until I see any actual studies and science behind them, I wouldn't be suggesting anything and even still, I'd only link the parent to the study and let them decide for their own child

On the second part, I just re-read what I typed and I wasn't really clear. I was only referring to walking in them, not even jogging, just to maybe give the feet some diversity at a very low impact level, maybe it would be beneficial.

BeepBeep67

I know some people that have paid €150 to buy shoes to allow them to walk.........barefoot :rolleyes:

IvoryTower

would running in track spikes be very close to barefoot?

Murph_D

cormie wrote: »

...I posted the thread asking if anyone knew the science and until I see any actual studies and science behind them, I wouldn't be suggesting anything and even still, I'd only link the parent to the study and let them decide for their own child

Eh, didn't I google that for you above?

The link contains discussion of "actual studies", including opinions as to their reliability, potential biases, etc. Sure, as you opined it IS a lot of reading, but that's what doing your own research is all about, surely?

cormie

Yep and I appreciate the link, just haven't had time to look into it fully and just responding to other posts in the mean time

jamule

IvoryTower wrote: »

would running in track spikes be very close to barefoot?

Mine feel v close.

Dubgal72

Barefoot running worked very well for me as a teen, but as mentioned above, I came from an immediate background of spending a LOT of time just hanging around in bare feet as a kid. I ran on everything except concrete and trails in my bare feet and transitioned quite naturally back into spikes for racing aged about 17/18. I certainly wouldn't recommend going into it 'cold'. I threw off my shoes earlier this season and ran on grass. I was shocked by how 'unfluid' I felt :eek:

davedanon

Possibly worth mentioning that the original 'barefoot' running shoe, the Vibram 5 fingers (basically a glove for the foot with a hard rubber sole) wasn't developed for running at all, but as a grippy sailing shoe. Someone saw the potential, and with that and Born to Run, BOOM. A fad was born. Don't see them around so much these days.

28064212

davedanon wrote: »

Possibly worth mentioning that the original 'barefoot' running shoe, the Vibram 5 fingers (basically a glove for the foot with a hard rubber sole) wasn't developed for running at all, but as a grippy sailing shoe. Someone saw the potential, and with that and Born to Run, BOOM. A fad was born. Don't see them around so much these days.

Probably because of this:

For the second part of the settlement, Vibram has agreed to discontinue to make any claims that FiveFingers footwear is effective in strengthening muscles or reducing injury in its marketing and advertising campaigns, unless the company discovers new scientific evidence that proves it.

cormie

Interesting, they are obviously a pretty big company. I wonder how much research like this would cost. If they were confident in their product it would surely be in their interest to get the research done and claims proven to be allowed advertise the benefits again.

Krusty_Clown

cormie wrote: »

Interesting, they are obviously a pretty big company. I wonder how much research like this would cost. If they were confident in their product it would surely be in their interest to get the research done and claims proven to be allowed advertise the benefits again.

If you click on the article:

Vibram USA, the company that makes FiveFingers running shoes, has agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged the company made false and unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of its glove-like footwear.

It's not that they haven't done the research. It's that the claims they made have no basis on reality.

jamule

cormie wrote: »

Interesting, they are obviously a pretty big company. I wonder how much research like this would cost. If they were confident in their product it would surely be in their interest to get the research done and claims proven to be allowed advertise the benefits again.

research has been done, it just doesn't back up their morketing dept

cormie

Wow, that's not instilling much hope in the whole notion behind barefoot running then if they had a chance not to lose 3.75 million and couldn't get the evidence they needed to support their claims :eek:

davedanon

cormie wrote: »

Wow, that's not instilling much hope in the whole notion behind barefoot running then if they had a chance not to lose 3.75 million and couldn't get the evidence they needed to support their claims :eek:

It was a fad whose time has come and gone. And pardon me for saying so, but it sort of looks as though you think that producing this 'evidence' is simply a matter of throwing enough money at it. If the evidence isn't there, then it isn't there. End of story.

cormie

Yeah, you'd just expect there to be at least some benefit which they might try exploit and hone in on from their research to even have a different marketing approach, something to hold on to..

davedanon

cormie wrote: »

Yeah, you'd just expect there to be at least some benefit

Why?

jamule

cormie wrote: »

Yeah, you'd just expect there to be at least some benefit which they might try exploit and hone in on from their research to even have a different marketing approach, something to hold on to..

there was, sales from a fad

cormie

davedanon wrote: »

Why?

Well anything that uses muscles in a different way that were used to may be exercising parts of our body which otherwise may have been neglected so maybe they could have concentrated on this. I'm just guessing here by the way

pconn062

Barefoot running is not a fad, barefoot running shoes are however. We ran cross country races barefoot as kids and many people still do, nothing faddish about it. As Jay Dicharry says, if nothing else barefoot running is a useful drill. Done on a flat, safe surface it encourages good running form (it's hard to over stride and heel strike while barefoot) and can help strengthen the muscles, ligaments and tendons in the foot. I enjoy doing my cool downs in bare feet on soft grass.

davedanon

cormie wrote: »

Well anything that uses muscles in a different way that were used to may be exercising parts of our body which otherwise may have been neglected so maybe they could have concentrated on this. I'm just guessing here by the way

Well, then why not run in elastic-sided gumboots, or a pair of hollowed-out melons? Attach a ball and chain?

cormie

I don't think they'd have the same widespread appeal as something more comfortable and stylish

cormie

https://www.painscience.com/articles/barefoot-running.php
Long article, but from the conclusion:

For this test, 200 experienced runners were studied over the course of a year. The results are clear and unsurprising: there was no important difference in injury rates, just the types of injuries. Each was better in some ways, worse in others. Although the paper emphasizes “fewer overall injuries” for barefoot runners, injury rates are what matters — the number of injuries per 1,000 kilometres, say — and they were “not statistically different between groups due to significantly less mileage run in the barefoot group.”

But there’s an important caveat: The barefoot runners put in just 24km/week, while runners in shoes ran 41km/week without an increase in injury rate. As Alex Hutchinson put it for Runner’s World, “The only way the comparison has any relevance is if they’re arguing that barefoot running reduces injuries by preventing you from running as much as you’d like.”

Naturally, a larger, longer study may have different results. But this is an excellent start, and we can now say with high confidence that barefoot running is not a panacea for running injuries — and more and better data will probably, if anything, be even more embarrassing for the natural running fad’s claims of injury prevention.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26130697

There doesn't seem to be any mention of whether they were wearing barerfoot shoes, or completely barefoot though/