Barefoot running

It seems almost impossible to look at a running website these days without seeing something about barefoot or minimalist running. There are a lot of strongly-held opinions on both sides of the debate, in fact often it doesn't seem to be a debate at all, but rather an exercise in mudslinging. See this example, and this one, for some of the arguments on both sides.

In a nutshell, the proponents of barefoot running (and here I also include the use of minimal non-cushioned shoes) say some or all of the following:

1. As a species, we evolved to run barefoot, and we have natural cushioning structures in our feet and lower legs that make cushioned running shoes unnecessary.

2. Cushioned shoes encourage us to run with poor form, because they protect us from our mistakes. Eventually, using them leads to inefficient running, weakened feet and chronic injuries like plantar fasciitis and achilles tendonitis.

3. Shoe manufacturers are well aware of this, but they only make money if we continually update our shoes for the latest hi-tech models, so they deliberately mislead us with tales of overpronation and so forth.

4. Podiatrists are almost as bad - they want to sell us their services, custom orthotics etc. so they support and add credibility to the shoe manufacturers' story.

As evidence for their point of view, proponents of barefoot running point to the many runners who have completed and even won long races in minimal footwear, and to the even greater number of runners who say their chronic injuries cleared up after they started running barefoot. These arguments are raised in the excellent Born to Run, by Christopher McDougall, by the way.

Opponents of barefoot running say that much of the talk about its supposed benefits is wholly unscientific, consisting of new-age claptrap, biased opinion and unsupported assertions rather than actual evidence. Also, they point out that those who buy minimal shoes are being just as misled by manufacturers' marketing ploys as anyone else.

For myself, I have to admit I am quite sympathetic to the barefoot idea, but I admit this is more because I want it to be true than because of any actual hard evidence. I can see how the cushioned shoes I use are indeed very forgiving of bad running form, and since improving my form has led to my running better than I have ever been capable of in the past, this does seem to suggest one possible reason why I should dispense with my Asics and buy something with less protection.

However, I can't quite bring myself to run completely barefoot at this point, or to buy some huaraches or other minimal shoes, as it is taking all my effort to build up my overall fitness at the moment, without having to build up my leg and foot muscles as well.

Also, the cost of the minimalist shoes just seems too high for what you get. If we are being asked to believe that shoe manufacturers like Nike, Asics etc. are conning us by pretending that all the hi-tech features in their latest £90 shoes are necessary when in fact they aren't, then how do the likes of Merrell and Vibram justify charging the same amount for shoes that have less material in them and required less development?

So for the moment I am sticking with my Asics, secure in the knowledge that if the barefoot brigade are right, then as the midsole cushioning starts to break down, the shoes will actually be better for me rather than worse.

Once I have my first race (Mortimer 10K) out of the way, I will have some time to think more about minimal shoes. If I can get hold of a reasonably cheap pair, then maybe I will give them a go and see if I can detect any advantages.