Weddings Supplies – Accessories

Train Lace

Barefoot Training vs Shoes

Mel Siff at health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/ gives his thoughts on the trend of barefoot training vs shoes - compelling reading!

In view of all the comments on the use of shoes in sport, here are some

extracts from our “Supertraining” book (Siff & Verkhoshansky 1999 Ch that

are relevant to the discussion.

Later I have provided a collection of websites that will also shed some more

light on this issue.

SHOES AND SAFETY

Shoe manufacturers would have athletes believe that the primary solution to

most athletic injuries is the wearing of expensive footwear. Ailments such as

shin splints, iliotibial band syndrome and peripatellar pain are attributed

variously to excessive shock loading of the limbs, pronation or supination.

Research, however, reveals that fewer injuries occur among those who wear

thin soled shoes and that current athletic footwear may even be injurious

(Robbins et al, 1988). The paradoxical observation of a much lower incidence

of running injuries reported in barefoot populations implies that modern

running shoes may produce injuries that normally would not occur without

their use (Robbins & Hanna, 1987). Furthermore, running shoes seem to be

associated with fewer injuries in fitness classes than so-called ‘aerobics

shoes’. Nigg (1986) reports that, on firm shock absorbing mats, the

difference in heel strike force is minimal between bare feet, thick-soled

shoes and thin-soled shoes. Nigg also points out that the use of any shoe

usually increases the tendency of the foot to pronate, particularly if the

impact forces are smaller.

Moreover, several studies have shown that there is no correlation between the

amount of shoe cushioning and impact absorption by footwear during locomotion

(Robbins et al, 1988; Clarke et al, 1982). Similarly, epidemiological

studies have failed to provide evidence that expensive modern athletic

footwear enhances protection from injury to the lower extremities (Caspersen

et al, 1984; Powell et al, 1986). Thus, it would appear that safety of the

lower extremity is not simply a consequence of suitable footwear, but of

learning how to move the body efficiently while wearing a specific type of

shoe.

SHOE DESIGN

Clearly, the science of athletic shoe design is far from being exact. For inst

ance, the current fo-cus is on foot pronation. Other possible causes of

injury such as toe, ankle, knee and hip movement in three dimensions are

largely neglected. Moreover, footwear design is based almost exclusively on

theoretical models which postulate that shock loading and the inability of

the human anatomy to adapt to this loading are the primary causes of running

injuries. This becomes evident from the claims of manufacturers that their

specific shoes correct excessive pronation, control the rearfoot, offer

superior arch support or absorb shock effectively. These shoes do not modify

the impact forces during locomotion, a fact which casts severe doubt on the

cushioning philosophy that forms the foundation of all current shoe design.

Studies by Robbins et al (1988) have shown that the sole of the bare foot

exhibits a powerful plantar surface protective response which diminishes

plantar loading on ground contact, thereby reducing the risk of damage from

overloading during locomotion. Their work also revealed that this response

was not apparent among subjects who always wear shoes, especially the highly

shock-absorbing shoes generally worn by runners. They concluded this

protective response prevents injury by decreasing system rigidity, thereby

diminishing the peak force during foot impact. The lack of the protective

response among shoe wearers apparently is due to diminished plantar sensory

feedback, possibly combined with mechanical interference with arch deflection

by shoe laces, heel counters and arch supports (Robbins et al, 1988). It

would seem that sufficient regular locomotor activity without footwear should

be done daily to maintain the sensitivity of the plantar protective reflex

and that less emphasis should be concentrated on designing passive

shock-absorbing or pronation-modifying shoes.

Little work has been done on relating lower limb injury to anthropometric

factors such as bodymass, height or limb length, or other factors including

level of qualification, movement intensity, muscle fibre distribution,

patterns of EMG activity, feedback processes or bone density. No research

has examined aerobics or ‘cross training’ shoes with this degree of

thoroughness, nor has it carried out entirely satisfactory three-dimensional

studies of all physical factors influencing the efficiency of whole body

movement from initiation to termination of a locomotor action, in particular

with respect to the optimal design of any shoe.

Irrespective of how well designed shoes are, they must be used correctly in

different move-ments. In doing so the user must be aware that shoes always

reduce the proprioceptive and tactile sensitivity to the surface on which

they are being used.

Another reflex is also worthy of attention. Forces exerted on the shoe are

delayed in being transmitted through its shock absorbing sole en route to the

foot. The reflex positive supporting reaction (see 3.5.3), which normally

operates highly effi-ciently in bare feet to produce strong reflex extension

of the legs and stabilisation of the body, is delayed in facilitating rapid

cybernetic control and correction of unsafe movements when shoes are worn.

In particular, the locus of application of pres-sure to the surface of the

sole of the foot determines the position to which the limb will extend

(Guyton, 1984), so that inappropriate geometry of the shoe can significantly

alter the pattern of recruitment of the muscles of the lower extremities.

In contrast, the use of bare feet on firm, very high density chip-foam mats

in the average fitness class preserves proprioceptive efficiency, lowers the

centre of gravity of the body and, unlike shoes, does not increase the lever

arm length from the point of heel contact to the ankle joint, thereby

reducing the moments of force about all joints of the lower limb.

If anyone is interested in the biomechanics of shoe design and use, the

following book is very informative:

Nigg, B The Biomechanics of Running Shoes 1986

There are several useful websites on gait analysis and footwear that are also

relevant. Here is a small sample of ones that you might enjoy:

barefooters.org/medicine/med_sci_sports_exer-23.2.html (Barefoot

Running)

barefooters.org/medicine/ (Bare feet are healthier)

uni-essen.de/~qpd800/FWISB/sneakers.html (Footwear Biomechanics)

ortho.rush.edu/gait/cases1.htm (Gait Analysis - Educational site)

polyu.edu.hk:80/cga/ (Clinical Gait Analysis)
About the Author

Mel Siff
Author of Supertraining
Author of Facts and Fallacies of Fitness
www.melsiff.com

Makeup Collection!