You may know him as COMEDIAN Eddie Izzard, or ACTOR Eddie Izzard.

But Eddie is also an impressive ultra-runner.

Eddie previously ran at least 27 miles a day, 6 days a week, for 7 weeks to raise money for Sport Relief.

Now, Eddie is planning to run 27 marathons in 27 days in Africa to honor Nelson Mandela’s 27 years in jail. And he plans to run them barefoot or in minimalist shoes!

They’ll be making a documentary about this and, not surprisingly, I think he should be wearing Invisible Shoes… but not just because I’d like the PR, or because I’d love to hang out with Eddie (both of which are true).

I think they’re the perfect shoe for him, of course, since they are:

• The lightest footwear he’ll find
• Can handle water better than any other
• Don’t smell
• Have our 5,000 mile warranty
• Can be repaired, if necessary (but unlikely), with easy to find local tools and products
• Have the best barefoot feel

But, more importantly, Invisible Shoes are based on an OLD idea… one that you see in Africa. And, ironically, Africa is one place in the world that’s suffering from diseases that people pick up from walking barefoot.

So, my fantasy is that Eddie can supply Invisible Shoes to the villages he runs through. And more than just give away shoes, show them how they can use them and… hey, get creative and come up with other uses, beyond footwear!

I can imagine a number of ways that a high-tech rubber sole could have other purposes… and some comedic ones as well (can you say bra and jockstrap?).

If you think Eddie should be using Invisible Shoes in Africa, let him know — Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/eddieizzard  Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/eddieizzard

Invisible Shoe customer Randy Kreill the opposite of me.

I’m a “short sprinter”. The 100m and the 60m (indoor) are my races of choice. I run a 200m under protest. And, yes, I’m also a “short sprinter” in that I’m 5’5″

Randy, on the other hand, is a tall, ultra-runner.

Here’s a picture of him finishing up his first 50k in his 4mm Connect barefoot sandals.

Personally, I don’t even like to DRIVE 50k.

Randy is also one of those guys who likes to experiment. He started with the basic huarache tying pattern, but tweaked it to something he uses for his long-distance runs. It’s not a slip-on/slip off style, but you can lace it up pretty quickly. It has a bit of a toga-style look about it. And one thing it does nicely is pull the ankle holes up around your foot.

If I were going to use this style (just the tying style…trust me, I won’t ever consider running ultra-distances), there are two things I’d consider changing.

1. Add another knot under the outside ankle hole once you’re confident that you have the various lace lengths correct. If you do this, you’ll have to adjust the lengths, since adding a knot will shorten the toe strap or heel strap, depending on how you tie it. What this will do is further “lock in” the lacing.
2. Coat those ankle knots with a layer of epoxy or Shoe Goo. While this style pulls the ankle holes off the ground nicely, the knots add a bit of extra material that’s closer to the ground. Add this to the fact that when people are just starting out with long-distance barefoot-style running, they tend to lose their form when they get tired. If you really lose it, you could end up heel-striking or scraping your feet a bit. If you do either of those, you could put some friction on those knots under the ankle holes. The Shoe Goo or epoxy will add some extra protection to the laces in those spots.

One of my favorite things about the barefoot running / minimalist footwear movement is that people are experimenting and coming up with more ideas and improvements to 15,000 year old ideas (like barefoot sandals) in the last 2 years than there have been in the last 14,998 years.

Keep it up everyone.

And good luck, Randy, on those amazing runs!

Thanks to our friend Chris Highcock of http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com and the author of one of our favorite ebooks, Hill Fit (about strength training for walking and hiking… and running, too) for pointing us to this great study:

Altering gait by way of stimulation of the plantar surface of the foot: the immediate effect of wearing textured insoles in older fallers

The gist of the study: by stimulating the feet of “older fallers” with textured insoles (I think with something like a “reflexology” insert), they got an immediate effect of a slower and more cautious gait.

What does this have to do with barefoot walking and running?

EVERYTHING!

One of the premises touted by those of us who are fond of barefoot living is that our feet are designed to be used, to be stimulated by surfaces, to send information to our spinal cord and to our brain, to Feel The World™!

This study suggests that when you give the feet stimulation — feet that have, for years, or decades, been made numb in smooth insoled, padded shoes — your brain and body work better. In this case, elderly people who are prone to falling change their gait in a way that should lead to fewer falls. And fewer falls means fewer broken bones. And fewer broken bones (especially hips) can mean a longer life for some of these people… people who, some day, we will be.

I talked with Dr. Michael Merzenich about this last year. Dr. Merzenich is featured in the book, The Brain That Changes Itself, and PBS puts him on-air when they want to raise money.

In our conversation, Dr. Merzenich and I discussed the brain’s “map” of the body. Think of your hand for a moment. In the “brain map” for the hand there’s a separate area for each finger. And, not surprisingly, the part of the brain-map for your first finger is next to the part of the map for your second finger… and so on down the line. Each finger’s section of the map is “differentiated” from the next.

If you taped your first two fingers together, after a while your brain-map would change. The sections for the first and second finger would essentially merge. The brain-map for those two fingers would de-differentiate.

At that point, you would experience your two fingers as one slightly bigger finger.

Well, Dr. Merzenich thinks that the same thing happens to the brain map for your feet. Over time, and after wearing shoes that, basically, “tape” your foot together, not allowing it to move with the full flexibility it normally has, not feeling all the different sensations it was built to feel, your brain-map for your foot de-differentiates.

At that point, from your brain’s perspective, you don’t have 5 flexible toes on a strong, flexible arch. You have a paddle.

And it’s hard to balance a paddle.

So, Dr. Merzenich and I outlined a number of experiments that could show how taking elderly people, and getting them out of their support shoes and off their walkers, might demonstrate how their brain map RE-differentiates, turning the paddle back into a foot, and allowing them to walk with more stability and balance.

The study hasn’t been done yet. But we hope it will soon.

Thinking of the issue of elderly people’s balancing problems being due to de-differentiated brain maps also removes some of the mystery of certain studies about Tai Chi’s value for the elderly.

A number of studies (I’m too lazy at the moment to look them up, let alone read them and determine whether they were well done… let’s assume they were) show how Tai Chi helps elderly people regain their balance.

It may be that the effects have nothing to do with Tai Chi, per se, but with being barefoot and USING your feet. That is, the elderly people in the study may have gotten the same effect if they went for a barefoot walk in the park. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Tai Chi — I did it and taught it for years. But in this case, it may be extraneous.

Similarly, there’s a study by Dr. Kirk Erikson where he found that elderly people who walked retained more brain mass over 9 years than those who didn’t walk. He thinks that the added brain stimulation that came from walking is what led to the “use it or lose it” results he got. I suggested to him that if he had a third group — who walked barefoot — they probably would have kept even more gray matter.

Sadly, he doesn’t have the funding or another 9 years to test that theory, but he suspects I could be right.

Maybe the barefoot trend will take a sharp detour and become more about healthy aging than about running, walking and hiking.

There’s no way to adequately thank one of the great inspirations in the running world, Micah True, also known as Caballo Blanco (“White Horse”), who was found dead just hours ago. Micah, arguably the “star” of Christopher McDougall’s best seller, Born To Run, went out for a run on Tuesday and did not return. There’s no news at this moment about a cause of death.

As Micah would often say in signing off, “Run Free!”

Run In Peace, Micah.

p.s. If you feel moved to support the cause Micah worked so hard on, go to http://www.norawas.org/

BIG news in the barefoot running shoe world today. Vibram has been named as the defendant in a class action lawsuit seeking $5,000,000 in damages for the use of deceptive statements about the health benefits of Vibram FiveFingers.

Is there anything to the case?

Well, I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on TV.

But I read the case (posted here), and have some thoughts (and I’m looking forward to yours).

My first few thoughts, having nothing to do with the merits of the case, are:

a) I like Vibram. Even though the products don’t work for me, and as you know I’ve teased them (about smell and the primate styling), if it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t be here. The popularity of FiveFingers and their marketing in the last few years has lifted the tide of the entire barefoot/minimalist footwear market, and I’ve been a beneficiary. A year and a half ago, I said to Vibram CEO Tony Post, “Thanks for doing the heavy lifting!”

b) This case could be the best thing that happens to the barefoot/minimalist shoe world, regardless of the outcome. How? Because it could help clear up the way language is used in marketing minimalist products, change unrealistic expectations of certain customers, and inspire even more research into the benefits (or lack thereof) of various “barefoot inspired” products.

It’s no secret that I’ve had my hackles raised when any number of the big shoe companies pull out a “lightweight” sneaker (6-12 ounces) with an inch of heel lift, massive toe spring, and a healthy dose of foam padding, and claimed it was “just like barefoot.” And here I sit with a 3.4 ounce, 4mm thick piece of flexible rubber, thinking, “Uh… really?”

Perhaps this case, or merely the conversation around it, will add a much-needed dose of clarity.

Quick aside: Let me play Uri Geller and give you my prediction about the outcome of this case: a semi-expensive settlement (which, for all I know is the reason the suit was filed in the first place).

Okay, onto the case.

In essence this case is similar to those against Skechers Shape-ups (ongoing) and Reebok “toning shoes” (Reebok settled for $25 million), where the plaintiffs argued that there was no scientific basis for certain claims that the shoe companies were making, that they sometimes inaccurately stated there was such a scientific basis, and that they enticed customers to pay a premium for the product based on the idea that they (the customers) would get various claimed benefits.

This suit describes how Vibram has claimed that running in VFFs will provide the following benefits:

• Improved foot health
• Reduced risk of injury
• Strengthened muscles in feet and lower legs
• Stimulated neural function improving balance, agility and range of motion
• Improved spine alignment
• Improved posture
• Reduced lower back pain
• Improved proprioception and body awareness

Here as well, the plaintiffs say there is no scientific backing for these claims; that claims there is are untrue; that if any of the claims are true there’s no evidence that VFFs do these any better than regular running shoes and, therefore; these claims are fraudulent and deceptive and that Vibram has profited by enticing customers to pay a premium price to receive benefits that Vibram cannot reliably deliver.

The case adds that Vibram’s fundamental claim — that VFFs simulate being barefoot — has no proof to support it, either. In fact, the action quotes the ACE study which showed that runners in Vibrams pronate more than when they’re barefoot as an example of how that claim is false.

Now, I can guess what many of you are thinking: How is this different than my box of Cheerios, that says “supports colon health” or my vitamin that says “promotes strong bones”?

Good question.

In the food and supplement world, those kinds of claims are called “structure/function claims.” The FDA uses very specific language to tell companies how to use very non-specific language about their products. The law is designed, at one level, to prevent supplement and food companies from making “drug-like” claims, like “cures cancer AND baldness.” On the other hand, it allows companies to make it sound like taking 3 Mega-Ultra-Men’s Formula capsules every day will make you healthy, wealthy, and able to bend steel with your mind.

I think it’s a poorly designed law (sponsored by congress-people who, wouldn’t you know it, come from states with a lot of nutritional supplement companies), but it is a law and it does have specific guidelines and rules.

I don’t know if there’s something similar for footwear. But few would argue that if you make a specific claim, you have to be able to back it up.

Looking back at the claims Vibram makes, I’m sure you can see that some of these are testable, and others have a “keeps your colon happy” flavor. Some have a bit of both: Stimulates Neural Function… a bit vague, but no real problem. “Improves balance and agility”… well that’s testable and I’m not sure there’s an independent study to back that up.

“Reduced risk of injury” and “strengthened muscles” seem testable. “Improve foot health” and “promote spine alignment” are more like what you see on the bottle of every supplement at Whole Foods.

I’ll admit that I take issue with one claim Vibram makes, mentioned elsewhere in the complaint: “No footwear comes closer to recreating this natural sensation than Vibram FiveFingers.” Even though I’m 100% convinced that Invisible Shoes give a better approximation of barefoot than anything else out there, including VFFs, I don’t have the science to prove my case and so I can’t state it as a fact.

I’ll also admit that it’s tricky to talk about any product without getting close to the line between something obvious-but-vague, like “can align your spine” (clearly, going to a zero-drop shoe changes your posture), and something scientifically testable like “strengthens your feet.” It gets especially hard when you have hundreds of testimonials from people talking about strengthening their feet, improving their posture, running pain-free, developing arches, and dozens of other reports that are anecdotal and not scientific.

Interestingly, while the plaintiffs argue that there are no studies to support Vibram’s claims, they present no science to dispute them either. The suit spends many pages saying, basically, “Vibrams cause injuries,” yet they offer none of the  double-blind, placebo-controlled studies they expect of Vibram to prove so. Instead, they rely on the same anecdotal “evidence” that they criticize Vibram for using. They quote a story in which a podiatrist says that 85% of her patients get injured trying to transition to minimalist shoes.

I’ve taken the logic of those types of claims to task before, but here’s the Readers Digest version:

a)    I’ll pay $100 if the podiatrist has actually kept statistics to back up the 85% claim

b)    If she’s discussing existing patients, we’re talking about people who, by definition, already had foot problems before they decided to try something minimalist

c)    She will never see patients, or non-patients, who make the transition without any need for medical care, so even if the 85% number were true, it has no relationship to the percentage of people, in total, who have problems

d)    It does not separate out people who went barefoot, in VFFs, in Nike Frees or any other of the myriad footwear options

e)    It does not account for whether the patients simply overtrained

f)      I’ll pay another $100 if she checked to see if form was the problem, not footwear

g)    How soon we forget that doctors made these same claims, and errors, 40 years ago when padded running shoes became the rage

h)    And, most importantly, since surveys have shown that 80% of marathoners get injured every year… the statistic is totally meaningless!

The claim also takes Vibram to task for charging a premium price based on the idea that customers are enticed to pay more to get the promised benefits. And while VFFs are undeniably pricey, they’re no more extravagantly priced than many high-performance shoes, or any motion-stabilizing shoes (seriously, $275 for the New Balance 2040?!).

While the lawsuit criticizes Vibram for saying, without any science to back it up, that Fivefingers are essentially the same as barefoot, some of the arguments of this case require accepting the position that VFFs are the same as barefoot. The claim quotes the American Podiatric Medical Association which says there isn’t enough research to know what the long- and short-term effects of barefoot running are. Okay, but since your argument is that VFFs aren’t barefoot, then some comment about whether barefoot running is good or bad is moot.

When I first read the claim, one thing stuck out in my mind above all others. The plaintiffs claim that Vibram created FiveFingers in 2006 to capitalize on the barefoot running trend. History wasn’t my best subject in high school, but I know that:

a)    Vibram didn’t design the FiveFingers as a running shoe

b)    The barefoot running boom started in 2009

Not a big point, I’ll admit, but if they missed something as simple as that, it gives me pause.

Another thought that keeps popping up:

Why Vibram? Some of the comments on Facebook and Twitter suggest that this case is completely without merit. Given everything above, I disagree. But, if you’ve been around the minimalist world for any amount of time, you’ll know there are a LOT of other companies who’ve made some or all of the same claims that are described in the suit.

The question “Why Vibram?” also prompts us to look at the bigger picture. And by “bigger,” I mean, “the rest of the running shoe world,” not just the minimalist “barefoot” shoe world.

Leaving out the “toning shoe” lawsuits, we know that running shoe companies have been making many of these same claims for decades without a hitch. As Phil Maffetone pointed out on Zero-Drop.com, running shoe companies aren’t required to demonstrate the same level of safety as ice-packs. In fact, unlike Vibram where there aren’t studies proving or disproving whether they “reduce injuries”, studies have existed for 60 years showing how padded running shoes can be injurious.

While Vibram may have made claims without proof, it seems that “traditional running shoe” companies (I put it in quotes to highlight how funny it is that many people call them “traditional” when they’ve only been around for 40 years) may have been engaged in behavior similar to the tobacco companies: selling a product that they know causes problems.

Why do they get a free ride?

I wonder if this is a situation like when a bunch of cars are all speeding and only one gets pulled over… or is it a foreshadowing of future events where the whole industry – minimalist and non-minimalist — is subject to actual scrutiny and as a result, is held to a higher advertising standard than they have been so far.

Some say this looks like a case that’s more about 5 law firms making money than it is about whether Vibram has scientific proof of their claims. I don’t know. Frankly, if it were, I’m surprised the suit is only asking for $5,000,000. Even if money is the motivator that doesn’t mean there’s no “there” there in some of the plaintiffs arguments.

I know that there are many companies much larger than mine who are waiting to see how this plays out with the anticipation a runner feels in between “On your marks!” and “GO!” Or maybe with the sphincter tightening that comes with opening your front door and hearing, “We’re from 60 Minutes and we’d like to talk to you.”

What do you think?

The media is having an anti-barefoot running field day thanks to a study published by some people right up the street from me at the University of Colorado (BTW, I’ve been living in Boulder for 19 years and nobody has been able to explain why they call the university CU instead of UC.).

Each of the dozens of articles about the study has a distinct flavor of elementary school playground taunting, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, boo, boo… barefoot running isn’t good for you!” 

I mean, check out some of the headlines:

Debunking the Barefoot Running Myth – Sydney Morning Herald (barefoot running isn’t like bigfoot!)

Here’s Proof Barefoot Isn’t Better — Running Times (Ha! So there!)

It almost feels like the press is enjoying creating a backlash to all the “pro” barefoot articles of the last two years, even though in every barefoot article I’ve read the media insists on publishing “both sides of the story,” and includes some doctor who’s never run a meter in bare feet and wouldn’t know decent barefoot running form if it ran him over, claiming that running without shoes will hurt you, bring shame on your family, and accelerate the coming apocalypse.

So, let’s take a deep belly breath or two and have a chat about the study. In fact, let’s start by talking about studies, in general:

Designing a biomechanics study is not easy. Aside from deciding exactly what you want to explore and the best design of the study itself (how you can test it), finding enough of the right kind of participants is often tricky, if not impossible.

It’s even more difficult to design a study that isn’t artificial in some way. That is, it’s showing effects in a lab that may not be relevant in the real world.

And, even more, many studies, while interesting, may not be relevant to the broader population. (Whenever someone quotes a study, or even just the habits, of elite marathoners, I respond “Unless you’re 5’5″ and weigh 105 pounds and run at 13 miles per hour for two hours… WHO CARES what those guys do?)

Finally, the way the media picks up a study — this one or any of the previous barefoot studies — often adds some spin that isn’t in the actual study.

All of the issues I just raised are relevant as we take a gander at the CU study. BTW, if you want to see a lively and cogent critical look at the study, you can’t go wrong with reading the comments on the New York Times article about it. Frankly, this post probably won’t be as lucid as some of the comments there.

Okay, let’s jump into it… The gist of the study:

“In the study, 12 subjects with substantial barefoot running experience ran at 7.5 MPH with a mid-foot strike pattern on a motorized treadmill, both barefoot and in lightweight cushioned shoes (~150 g/shoe, 5.4 oz). In additional trials, they attached small lead strips to each foot/shoe (~150, ~300, ~450 g). For each condition, they measured the subjects’ rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production as an index of metabolic cost.”

And the results:

a) For every 100g (3.5oz) (the average weight of a deck of playing cards) added per foot, energy cost increases by approximately 1% whether running barefoot or shod.

b) Running barefoot and in lightweight shoes do not significantly differ in energy cost.

c) When controlling for shoe/foot mass, running in lightweight shoes requires ~3-4% less energy than running barefoot.”

Now, let the fun begin. Can you find the “confounds” (the factors in the study that might affect the results, or the interpretation of the results)?

I’ll start. Let me know if you find more.

1) How did they determine that the 12 subjects had “substantial barefoot experience?” Well, the study says, “8 km/week barefoot or in minimal running footwear (e.g. Vibram Five Fingers) for at least 3 months out of the last year.”

Does 3 months out of the last 12 really equal “substantial?” I’ve been barefoot for 3 years, and I’m STILL improving my form.

And if that three months was wearing VFFs or minimalist shoes, that counts as “barefoot experience” Uh…

As I’ve commented, and as the American Council on Exercise showed, and as Pete Larsen from www.runblogger.com captured on video: VFFs are not the same as barefoot.

Now the researchers did verify that the subjects all ran with a “midfoot or forefoot” landing. I know that Lee Saxby, the spokesman and coach from Vivobarefoot would have an issue with that. He doesn’t think midfoot is proper barefoot form (there’s some debate about that, but it’s besides the point at the moment).

2) They ran on a treadmill. Look, I get that testing runners on an actual track is hard and expensive, but running on a treadmill is not the same as running on the ground, end of story. It may give some useful data, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but the duck is on a treadmill… hmmm, that analogy isn’t quite working, but you know what I mean.

I did some high-speed video analysis of my running at the Monfort Human Performance Lab. I hit 21 mph on that treadmill. I can tell you that when I’m on a treadmill, my stride is different than on the track. I overstride so I can “catch” the treadmill belt, for example.

3) To simulate a running shoe’s weight, the researchers put lead weights on the top surface of the runners’ feet. Do you think some small weights pressing down on your foot is different than having that same amount of weight distributed evenly, and mostly under your foot, thanks to the design of the shoe? I do. Does that matter? Could be. Is there a way to check… not easily.

4) The runners were at 7.5 miles per hour. That’s slow for an elite runner –  about 200 meters in a minute, a quarter mile in 2 minutes, a mile in 8 minutes — but fast for most casual runners. This raises a few questions:

a) How was that pace compared to the runners’ usual training pace?
b) Does speed make a difference?
c) What about turnover, or cadence? Were those controlled and the same when the runners were barefoot vs. shod?

Got me. But, suffice it to say, we’re seeing the artificial quality of the study.

5) Oh, this wasn’t mentioned above, but I’ll give it to you now: the runners were wearing yoga socks. ““For the duration of the experiment, subjects wore very thin, slip-resistant yoga socks for safety and hygienic purposes.”

Hygienic purposes? Uh, some 409 and a paper towel would handle any “hygiene issues.” And “safety”? If you read the study, one aspect of “safety” is “avoiding blisters.”

Boy, where to start on that one? We know that socks does not equal barefoot, and we also know that if you get blisters when you run barefoot, you’re doing something wrong. So, this brings us back to number 1 — how experienced were these runners really?

6) The study measured oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production. Okay, that’s a fine way to measure efficiency, based on the idea that using less oxygen and producing less CO2 means you’re using less effort, and that equals being more efficient.

But here’s a question: So what?

For one: does using less energy equate to faster times? It seems like it might, but that’s not a given.

Does the amount of extra energy being used by *some* of the barefoot runners have any relevance to the average runner? Someone for whom 7.5 mph is too fast… or even too slow?

7) Oh, here’s a favorite. The runners in the study wore an ultra-lighweight racing flat. Most runners wouldn’t wear those. And most runners with no barefoot experience wouldn’t find those any friendlier than being shoe-free.

One other thing: A hallmark of the scientific method is reproducibility. Just because one lab gets a result, that doesn’t mean the question is resolved. When a study is reproduced in independent labs and the same (or very similar) result is obtained… then you know you’ve got something.

What if the study is correct, though? What if barefoot running is less efficient than shod running?

The only answer I can come up with is: Who cares?

I don’t mean that it’s not important to know. I mean, literally, who should care?

If you never race, you’ll never notice any difference in efficiency (assuming, again that “decreased efficiency” = slower times).

Besides, there are MANY other reasons to run with bare feet than the idea that it’s more efficient… many that have barely been touched on (Dr. Michael Merzenich and I have had some interesting chats about how being barefoot could help the elderly in various ways). Personally, I didn’t make the switch for efficiency’s sake. In fact,  for me, as a sprinter, I know I’m more effective in spikes than barefoot. I switched because it helped me correct some form problems, eliminated injuries I was getting, turned running from a chore into an enthralling discovery, and, more importantly… WAS FUN.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that my Boulder neighbors are researching barefoot running. And while this is the first published study, I know they have more coming and I’m looking forward to those.

And I’m certainly not blaming them for how the media is handling the story.

My only interest is the continued exploration, conversation, and understanding of efficient movement, running for speed and/or distance, and the ways of teaching and exploring barefoot running (and walking and hiking).

No one study can perfectly address all of the open questions. But the almost combative attitude where everyone wants to jump on some one-sided “We’re better!” bandwagon certainly doesn’t help.

Suffice it to say, this study is not the death knell of barefoot running that many media outlets are portraying it to be (because, you know, controversy is more important than truth if you’re trying to sell papers).

Now, if you’ll pardon me, I have to burn off some of my frustration by putting on some yoga socks and minimalist shoes and going for a barefoot run.

p.s. (added on 4/4/2012): 

I just realized that the conclusion of the study was WAY off base!

Here’s why

The researchers think that the improved efficiency of the shoes came from the PADDING absorbing some of the stress that the muscles have to handle when you’re barefoot.

In other words, the ENTIRE efficiency effect could be ALL about the padding and have nothing to do with weight. The weight issue would only be valid if they tested multiple shoes of the same weight with different types of padded outsoles and got the same results.

Dr. Mark Cucuzzella is not only FAST (he won the US Air Force Marathon this year), he’s committed to understanding the facts of barefoot running (and minimalist, too).

As a physician, professor, and owner of Two Rivers Treads running shoe store, Mark is all about getting people running safely, enjoyably, and easily. Plus, he’s a really nice guy.

Mark just released an incredible video about “Natural Running.” His emphasis in the video is about running barefoot, but his point is that if you run with a natural gait, you may be fine in a minimialist running shoe, too.

Check out this video and let me know what you think.

One of my favorite parts is simply seeing mark run… FAST. There are so many critics who say “You never see barefoot runners who have any speed” (forgetting, of course, Abebe Bikila, Zola Budd, Ron Hill, and many other fast, barefoot Olympians).

I also like how Mark doesn’t emphasize exactly how your foot is supposed to hit the ground other than “don’t heel strike.” A number of us, including Mark and Pete Larson (of www.runblogger.com) have been saying, “There will be individual differences in how you land on your foot — from flat-footed, to fore-foot — that will depend on your physiology and biomechanics as well as how fast you’re running and whether you’re running uphill, downhill, and even on the surface.”

That said, most new runners may want to focus on a forefoot strike at first, if for no other reason than many of us have lost our proprioceptive skills from years of wearing shoes and may think we’re mid- or fore-foot landing when we’re still heel striking. I’ve had more than my share of runners try to convince me that their heels never touched the ground, even when looking at video showing them clearly heel striking.

Thanks to Mark for this great addition to the world of barefoot and natural running.

I just realized that I have a strange history with barefoot running, barefoot walking, and minimalist shoes.

First, like most of us, I spent a lot of time barefoot as a kid in the Summer. I went to a camp in the Pocono Mountains (Camp Shohola just in case any readers also went there) and whenever I had the chance, I was barefoot (made easier by the fact that I spent half of my days doing water sports). I was a competitive diver, too, so that kept me out of shoes.

In junior high school and high school, I was a gymnast, so that was even more barefoot time every day.

When I was 18, I went to New York City to be a street performer. I had already been doing this in Washington, DC, doing a magic act in Georgetown, and on K Street, near the White House. When I got to NYC, though, I found it much harder to get a crowd and, even worse, within a few weeks, the other street magicians had stolen all my bits! I asked one of the veteran street acts what I should do and  he said, “Simple, write an act that nobody would dare steal.”

I pondered this for a while, until I landed on the answer. I created an act that had a bunch of crazy gymnastics in it (I did a running front flip over someone’s head, stealing their hat and placing it on my head while in mid-flip), and a finale where I… wait for it… walked on broken glass in my bare feet.

Now let me back up. For the gymnastics part of the act, I wore minimalist shoes. They were some old Adidas (I can’t remember the name), with zero-drop, very little toe spring, not much padding. Just enough between me and the ground so I didn’t kill my feet. This was in 1980-81, BTW.

I loved these shoes. I bought every pair I could find. When I could no longer find them, I asked the local running shoe store what happened and he answered, “Adidas stopped selling them; they were lasting too long.”

I don’t know if his info was accurate but, if it was, it wouldn’t be the first time a company pulled a product that didn’t wear out or go obsolete fast enough.

Luckily, I found a company that sold shoes to prisons (you can find ANYTHING in NYC), and they had the last few pairs of these shoes… I bought them all. And they lasted through some serious abuse.

Okay, back to walking barefoot on glass, though. Let’s just say that it’s part physics, part showmanship, and part some-hard-to-describe-thing that, if I could convince you to jump onto a 3″ high pile of shattered beer bottles, you would instantly get a knowing look in your eye and say, “Ahhh… I get it now.”

In 5 years and thousands of shows, I only got one small cut. But by the end of the day, my feet were FILTHY from being barefoot on the street.

CUT TO: Going to Asia in 1989.

This is where I got hooked on being barefoot. Aside from the fact that you never wear shoes into almost any building (I was in China, Nepal, India and Thailand), there were plenty of opportunities to be barefoot outside as well. There were also plenty of times where you wanted something on your feet, but not much because it was really hot when I was there, and anything more than a sandal was way too much.

When I came back from Asia, I stuck with the habit of removing my shoes whenever I went into someone’s home (we’ve saved a fortune on carpet cleaning by not dragging dirt in from the outside).

Okay, so why this long story?

Simple, I was reminded of it all when Regev Elya did his review of Invisible Shoes, which he took on a 7-month trip through Southeast Asia (I’m SO jealous).

Of course, I think that Invisible Shoes are the best minimalist shoes for a trip like that… but check out what Regev says.

Following up on the “What I do” meme, I offer you this:

Feel free to share it! Put it on your FB wall! Tweet it. Pin it. Enjoy!

Okay, barefoot runners, friends of barefoot runners, people who think running barefoot is silly, and anyone else who has ever seen, heard of, made fun of, or been married to someone who maybe heard of running barefoot or saw a picture of some Vibram FiveFingers (in other words: Hi, everyone!)…

Here’s the follow-up to the viral Sh*t Barefoot Runners Say (almost 100,000 views as I write this).

Inspired by, well, all the things I’ve heard runners say as I trotted about town without my shoes, or in my huaraches running sandals, it’s Sh*t Runners Say To Barefoot Runners

Share this on FB, Tweet it, email about it, +1 it… let’s make this one even more successful than the original!

Aaarrrrrrrhhhh!

Every now and then, someone will smugly say to me:

“Barefoot Sandals is an oxymoron. If you’re barefoot, you’re not wearing sandals, and if you’re wearing sandals, you’re not barefoot!”

Yes, technically, that’s true. Barefoot is barefoot and shod is shod.

And, I’ll admit, I’m normally a stickler for grammar. I hate when people say “very unique” (something can’t be VERY one-of-a-kind), and don’t even get me started on “a whole nother” (“nother” isn’t a word! You mean “another whole”).

But for “barefoot sandals” or barefoot shoes or even bare feet shoes, I’m willing to be a bit more lax, and not just because I’m in the business of making huarache sandals.

It’s simpler than that.

In this case, there’s not really much lost when you remove the “implied word”: -style.

That is, what people would say instead of “barefoot sandals” if they were being more accurate is “barefoot-style sandals,” or “barefoot-style shoes,” the implication being that this type of footwear is similar in some way to being barefoot.

Now the key element to that sentence is “similar in some way,” and I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that many shoes that advertise themselves as barefoot running shoes are about as similar to barefoot as a pair of stilts (I should make a spoof commercial about barefoot stilts!).

Some manufacturers say that their shoes let your foot move as if you’re barefoot, or run with natural form (usually meaning forefoot or midfoot striking). Others say that you can feel the ground as if you’re barefoot.

It won’t come as any surprise that I think Invisible Shoes does this better than any other product. After all, what could let your foot move more naturally than having nothing on your foot? And what could give you more ground-feel than just a bit of rubber (oh, I know, LESS rubber… but that’s a story for another post).

One of the first Invisible Shoes customers said it best when he came back from his first run, all giddy, “It’s just like being barefoot… if they covered the earth in 4mm of rubber!”

So, cut some slack to those of us who use phrases like “barefoot sandals” or “barefoot shoes.” Let the implied meaning come through. But do demand that those who use the phrase can back it up with a product that lives up to the claim.

“How do I start barefoot running?”

“What’s the best book/course/coach for learning to run barefoot?”

“Can you show me what barefoot running form looks like?”

I get these questions a lot. And, frankly, I don’t want to answer them. In fact, I’ve resisted writing this post for, well, months.

Here’s why (in no particular order, even though I’m using numbers to delineate my reasons):

1. Frankly, if all you did was take off your shoes, go for a run, stop when it hurts, and experiment to find ways of running that don’t hurt, you would learn more than I, or anyone else, could tell you.
2. Those of us who’ve observed barefoot runners and coached barefoot running are starting to notice the obvious: different runners have different form. That is, when you look at the BEST runners, they may have a few things in common, but they’re not all doing the same thing. So, I don’t want to say something that isn’t going to be relevant for YOU.
3. To be totally candid, I’m in an awkward political situation — as a guy who sells “barefoot-style” footwear, and who would like to have ALL the coaches referring their clients to me, I can’t single out one coach/book/technique over another (or one “under” another, either). I can tell you that if you listen to ALL of them, and then follow a bit of advice I’ll give, below, you’ll appreciate each coach for his/her unique contribution to you barefoot running form.
4. Many runners aren’t aware of what their bodies are actually doing, so certain recommendations won’t be effective anyway. If I say to you, “don’t land on your heels,” and show you a video of how you’re “supposed” to land on your foot, you may be 100% convinced that you’re doing what I suggested, and then a video might show that you are totally heel-striking. In other words, what I say will be less important than what you learn on your own.

That said, here’s some thoughts about getting started with running bare footed.

• Realize that the best coach you have is YOU and your sensations and whatever you can learn from watching video of yourself (especially slow motion video). In fact, you MUST become your own best coach, because no external coach will be there for every situation you’ll encounter as a runner. If you can’t listen to yourself, make adjustments in what you’re doing, and know when to STOP… no other coach will be helpful anyway.
• Start SLOWLY and build up. Check out my post about getting started with barefoot running. There’s no rush in making the transition to barefoot running. And there’s no way to predict how long it will take YOU.
• Remember that this is a never-ending process that you can always improve.

To be slightly more specific and technical, and tell you some of what you would discover on your own with enough time and attention:

• Hard, smooth surfaces are the best for learning. They give you the most feedback.
• You want to land mid-foot or fore-foot. Do NOT reach out with your foot to do this; that’s the opposite of what you want to do.
• You don’t need to stay on the balls of your feet and put extra strain on your calves and Achilles tendons. Once you land on the ball/midfoot, you can let your heel drop if it feels better to do that, and it will feel better/worse depending on whether you’re going uphill or downhill or on a flat, and depending on what speed you’re running.
• Don’t PULL your foot toward you, or PUSH it behind you… that’ll cause blisters as well as put extra strain on your hamstrings (pulling) and calves (pushing). Think, instead, about PLACING your foot on the ground and LIFTING it off. And lift by using your hip flexor. That is, think about lifting your foot off the ground by lifting up your knee, not by pushing off the ground.
• Aim for having your feet land more “under your body” than you’re probably used to. Landing with your foot out in front of you too much is “overstriding” and it’s one of the habits that most of us need to work to overcome. You may need to even exaggerate this to get the feel of it — put your feet “behind you” when you land. You won’t actually be able to do this, but if you try it will highlight what overstriding feels like… and the correct place to put your feet is probably somewhere in between.
• Un-Plop your feet. This is hard to describe, but many of us slam our feet into the ground, or wait for the ground to hit our feet. We plop them onto the ground instead of meeting the ground lightly. There are a lot of “cues” coaches use to teach this: Pretend you’re running on hot coals, or on thin ice, or trying to sneak up on a deer, or that your feet are wheels and you want them to touch where the wheel meets the ground, or that the ground is moving below you like a treadmill and you want to move your feet at the same speed as the treadmill. You will need to find your own way to feel this.
• Core tight… when you run, your body is a spring. If you collapse in your midsection, you’re weakening the spring and making it less efficient and, therefore, making it harder to run.
• Pick up your cadence. Most people think 180 steps-per-minute is some magic number. It’s not. Some successful runners do more, some do less. The point of moving your feet faster than you’re probably used to is that it gives you less time to keep your feet on the ground… and that’ll help you learn to place/lift, “un-plop” and not overstride.
• LISTEN… if you’re running loudly, if you make a lot of noise when your feet hit the ground, you’re doing one of the above incorrectly. This is true if you’re barefoot, in Invisible Shoes, or any other footwear. You can run quietly (not silently), and quiet running is usually a sign of good form.
• WONDER! When I run, I keep a question in my mind, “How can I make this lighter, easier, and more fun… and, sometimes, faster?” Then, I experiment and see what I can find.

Then, most importantly:

• REST. Bodies get stronger when you let them rest. There are no bonus points for not taking a day off.
• HAVE FUN! If it’s not fun, do something different. Try a different surface, a different speed, a different reason for running (compete if you haven’t before, do an obstacle course if you’re usually all about putting in mile after mile).

I’m sure others of you have other simple pointers. Can’t wait to hear them.

Oh, and did I mention, barefoot running can be, should be, and IS (once you get it) FUN… don’t forget that!

Congrats to Ross Tucker and his co-climbers who climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro totally barefoot!

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/02/barefoot-kilimanjaro-mission.html

One of the things Ross discusses is how, when he told people that he wanted to make the barefoot attempt, he was met with disbelief, mocking, and all manner of non-support.

Sound familiar, barefoot runners?

I emailed him in advance of his trip to show him my video of shoveling snow barefoot and let him know I was positive he would make it, and have fun doing it. In fact, I was totally jealous and wished I could make the flight to do the trip with him (besides, since I live at 5600′, I thought I’d have an advantage).

Now, Ross and his team didn’t take this mission lightly. They didn’t wake up one morning and think, “Hey, let’s take a hike… barefoot… up the tallest mountain in Africa!”

They did a lot of preparation — Ross did less than the others because he joined later. I argued that they did more than they needed. But the point is that they built up to the task rather than simply pretending they were still wearing shoes. I say this to the runners who think that they can simply take off their shoes and pop a barefoot marathon (I know people who’ve done that without a problem, but they’re the exception, not the rule).

I can’t wait to see what new barefoot adventures people tackle in the future.

Congrats again, Ross and the team!

You’re not a real barefoot runner if you haven’t said one of these

What are the benefits of barefoot running?

Well, Harvard’s Dr. Daniel Lieberman has another answer. His studies from 2 years ago showed how barefoot runners who forefoot strike put less force into the ground and, therefore, less force into their joints.

Now he has 2 new studies that have just come out that support how proper barefoot running form and minimalist running shoes can result in fewer injuries and more efficient running.

“Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study” looked at college cross-country runners and found that those who heel-strike (landing on their heels first) had approximately twice the rate of injury than those who forefoot strike. For those of you who’ve been exploring barefoot running know, proper barefoot form involves landing on the forefoot first.

BTW, that doesn’t mean you “run on your toes” — your heel can naturally drop to the ground after the forefoot meets the ground first. In fact, letting your ankle relax is part of the natural spring mechanism of the leg.

You may also know that the easiest way to help train yourself to forefoot strike is to go barefoot or wear something genuinely minimalist, like Invisible Shoes. The more you can feel the ground when you run, the less you’ll want to land on your heel… because IT HURTS!

Be careful, though, many shoes that call themselves “minimalist” still have enough padding and protection between you and the ground that you lose the barefoot feel and can still heel strike. In fact a recent barefoot running study by ACE and some video of barefoot runners made by Pete Larson of runblogger.com showed that a majority of Vibram Fivefinger wearers still heel strike as they run. In my experience, this is probably because the VFFs have enough padding (especially the ones made for running, ironically) that the wearers can’t tell they’re still heel striking.

Dr. Lieberman’s other study, ”Effects of Footwear and Strike Type on Running Economy” demonstrated that runners in minimal footwear have increased efficiency than those in traditional running shoes.  Specifically, the study concluded that ”Minimally shod runners are modestly but significantly more economical than traditionally shod runners regardless of strike type, after controlling for shoe mass and stride frequency. The likely cause of this difference is more elastic energy storage and release in the lower extremity during minimal shoe running.”

If minimal shoes make you more efficient, that’s good news for us, since Invisible Shoes are about the most minimalist running shoe you can find.

Barefoot hiking may be the next minimalist/barefoot trend.

While barefoot running is the thing that became popular (thanks in large part to Christopher McDougall’s book, Born to Run), I’ve noticed in the last few months that:

• Many new barefoot runners haven’t read, or even heard of, Chris’s book
• A significant percentage of our customers are not runners, but hikers, walkers, gym-goers, yoga practitioners, and CrossFit-ers

And, more and more, I get emails and photos from people showing them at the top of some mountain, either barefoot or in their Invisible Shoes. A lot of times their emails will say, “I brought my running sandals with me to use around the campsite or if I was going through water and didn’t want my shoes to get wet. But it was so much more fun to feel the ground as I hiked, that I just put my hiking boots in my pack and wore my huaraches instead.”

I know the feeling. I haven’t worn real shoes for anything like a hike since the Summer of 2009, and the idea of balancing on my stiff hiking boot soles instead of gripping the rocks and roots isn’t at all appealing. And it’s  definitely one of my favorite moments when I come upon a small stream to cross, and see a handful of hikers trying to figure out how to make it without getting their feet wet… and then I just plod through the water without breaking stride

Frankly, I love the idea that minimalism and barefoot and natural movement make it beyond the world of running, beyond the question of performance (e.g. “do you run faster barefoot?” or “is barefoot running better than shod running?”). After you’ve been barefoot for a while, you simply love the way it feels in every circumstance.

Granted, I also think that being barefoot or truly minimalist has other advantages — all those nerves in the bottom of your feet are there for a reason; use ‘em or lose ‘em. But if the only reason people take off their motion-controlled shoes is for fun, that’s good enough for me! And if they decide to wear Invisible Shoes for those times where a little bit of protection or style are needed, I won’t complain

Oh, backing up to the reason I wrote this post: There’s a great story today about a woman who climbed Kilimanjaro barefoot.

[This post is guest-authored by our friend Rob Raux from www.shodless.com]

Being barefoot and running barefoot is a blissful and consciousness-expanding endeavor. The feedback supplied from the ground is powerful enough to force even experienced runners to try it for only a mile or so, if they make it that far. Barefoot running, however wonderful, should not be subscribed to dogmatically.

There are myriad resources available expounding on the benefits of being barefoot. Most of their reasons, methods, and warnings have merit. Unfortunately many of them sway to heavily towards the one-size-fits-all solution.

Experiencing life unshod isn’t always the best option. Putting on a pair of huaraches or other minimalist shoes can serve a number of beneficial purposes:

1. Technical Trail Running.
   Many people worry that the rocks, twigs, and roots on a trail make barefoot trail running impossible. Not true. First, you use your eyes and avoid what worries you. Second, your feet aren’t rigid and can grab and grip and mold around many “obstacles.”

   That said, while there’s nothing better than feeling the grass beneath your feet, having your heel land on an embedded rock leaves something to be desired. To be more specific, it could leave behind a bruise that will take at least a week to heal.

   That doesn’t include the chance of damaging the fatty tissue which protects your heel bone from impacting the ground. If any of this sounds painful, trust me, it’s worse than you’re picturing.

   A trail has hazards which you may not wish to risk if you’re still an inexperienced barefooter. When a single false step means a week of no running, it’s just not worth it to be ideological about keeping yourself unshod.

2. Additional mileage
   Your body may be able to take additional mileage, but the bottoms of your feet may not be ready to support it yet barefoot. Now, if you’re looking to become a better barefoot runner, this is good news — when your skin tells you to stop… STOP! Over time it’ll adapt (not callous) and you’ll be able to put in more miles.

   Until then, there’s nothing wrong with protecting your precious footsies, but only if you know your form is correct. If you are transitioning from shoes to barefoot and have yet to perfect the change from heel strike to mid foot strike or a forefoot strike, don’t ask for trouble by adding more miles in a minimalist shoe. You’ll find yourself injured promptly and thoroughly.

   If you are comfortable in your stride, you will find that your feet hit a natural point where further barefoot running may only lead to blisters (that usually means your form has broken down and you’re pulling/pushing the ground, instead of placing/lifting). In these cases, adding a protective covering will give you the opportunity to add those additional miles you crave.

3. Racing
   A foot covering increases your margin for error while running. Proponents of barefoot running tout the pain feedback loop as a beneficial aspect. Any foot covering blocks the pain receptors, which allow you to cause more damage to your body.

   In a race, this can be a necessary evil. A reduced pain feedback loop allows you to run a longer duration of more intensity. The covering may also absorb some of the mistakes you may have made barefoot (stepping on that rock in your mental fatigue).

   There’s obviously a very fine line to be ridden here, and one that you can certainly go too far with. Go with the least amount of covering possible and you should be able to dampen and absorb just the minimal amount of error to improve your results.

   I’d love to say, “If you’re not comfortable running that distance, don’t race that distance.” But I know how some of us… I mean, YOU… can be

4. The bitter cold
   Mother nature yields to no man. Don’t even think about getting the best of father winter.

   If you live in a climate that has a true winter, you know what frostbite feels like. Now try running barefoot.

   Amazingly, there are folks who do it, and enjoy it. And check out Steven shoveling snow in his huaraches. Frankly, I’ve tried it and even I think that’s crazy. Most people are going to need something to keep their feet protected from the elements (wind, snow, slush, etc.). Each person has a different tolerance, which will adapt as they get more comfortable with the colder weather.

   When dealing with the elements it’s best to be safer than pull up limp 3 miles from your house and walk the rest of the way home.

Barefoot In the cold

Here in the Northern Hemisphere, Winter is upon us. And people email me every day asking what to do if they want to be barefoot or minimalist in the cold weather. While I’ve written about running bare foot in the cold before, this is a whole new thing

First let me say: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. In other words, don’t go out and try to imitate me.

I’ve been barefoot running for over 2 and a half years, and haven’t worn a pair of real shoes for more than a total of 3 days in that time. 

Last winter, I thought, “I’ll keep my Invisible Shoes on until it seems too cold.” And the next thing I knew, it was Spring!

So, clearly I’ve acclimated. And that’s not too surprising. Humans (and our hominid cousins) lived in cold climates without shoes for a LOOOONG time. So, we’re kinda wired for it, if we give ourself time to adapt.

Here’s the video I just shot, after we got 18″+ of snow in Boulder. It’s about 15 degrees out.

What I did is this:

• Outside for about 10 minutes
• Inside to dry off my feet and warm them for 5
• Outside for another 10
• Inside to dry and warm for about 3
• Outside for 30+ minutes… by this time my body temp had gone way up. I was sweating quite a bit. And my feet felt totally warm. Not numb. Warm. When I got inside after finishing the shoveling, they didn’t have to thaw or warm up or anything.

Lena wants me point out that you should check the Wiki about frostbite so you don’t do something stupid and get hurt

Invisible Shoes wins Best Huaraches Running Sandal 2011

Christian Peterson, better known as The Maple Grove Barefoot Guy, just announced his first ever Grovie awards for excellence in minimalist footwear.

And we are thrilled to announce that Invisible Shoes won the Best Huarache category.

Here’s what Christian had to say:

2011 was really the year of the huarache.  We saw tons of new sandal companies crop up, all with great new innovative designs.  The big two companies (Invisible Shoe and Luna) also put out some great updates to their original models.  But Invisible Shoes took that innovation to the next level.  They went out and got a former Nike shoe designer to make the FeelTrue sole of their Connect and Contact huaraches.  The result is a powerhouse of a sandal that has no real apparent weaknesses.  

Christian recently reviewed the Connect and Contact version of Invisible Shoes, so we’re especially honored to have 2 mentions in such a short period of time.

That said, while we’re happy to have won Best Huaraches running sandals, we have LOTS of plans for even more improvements and additional products for 2012. I hope that in next year’s Grovie Awards we win at least two categories, maybe even three!

2011 has been a big year for us: Releasing the only outsoles made specifically for barefoot running (some like to say “bear foot running”) sandals  that were designed with the help of former lead designers from Nike and Reebok, our 2nd Anniversary, and a HUGE upsurge in business.

Between you and me, every time I see Chris McDougall, I practically kiss his feet. If it weren’t for him and the success of “Born To Run,” this whole barefoot running trend may never have taken off.

So, thank you again to MGBG, and to everyone else who has helped us and supported us in 2011.

I can’t wait to hear the comments when we launch all our new barefoot running sandal products in the next year.

If you thought being barefoot was just about running… HA!

And if you worry about things you might step on… HA! HA!