good article about minimalist running
 

Study: Running Form Of The Tarahumara Indians
Harvard professor Daniel Lieberman turns from the Kenyans to the fabled ultrarunners of Copper Canyon.
By Amby Burfoot (Google+)Published May 12, 2014
Harvard evolutionary biologist and running-form expert Daniel Lieberman doesn’t mess around when it comes to studying the most fascinating running cultures. Several years ago he published a widely-heralded paper about the forefoot-strike employed by many Kenyan runners. Now he has reported from Mexico’s vast Copper Canyon where the fabled Tarahumara Indians live and run.

Copper Canyon and the Tarahumara formed the framework of Chris McDougall’s best-selling Born To Run, the book that launched barefoot running and minimalist running. Copper Canyon is larger and deeper than the Grand Canyon, and the huarache-shod Tarahumara have practiced long-distance-running contests for eons. Huaraches are rawhide- or car-tire-soled sandals. The Tarahumara have raced well on occasion in U.S. ultra races, and more than hold their own when U.S. runners travel to Copper Canyon for races. This despite the fact that they don’t “train” in any conventional fashion—an important point that Lieberman notes several times.

In his new paper [see below for free, full-text link], Lieberman compares the running style of huarache-wearing Tarahumara men and women with the style of slightly younger Tarahumara who have grown up mostly in western-style shoes. Many of the shy, wary Tarahumara refused to participate, not wishing to be videotaped. In the end, Lieberman was able to film 12 runners who were minimally shod (MS, grew up wearing huaraches most of the time) and eight who were conventionally shod (CS, grew up mostly in western shoes).

As usual, Lieberman was interested in footstrike (forefoot/midfoot v. rearfoot) and other stride variables such as stride length, hip/knee/ankle movements, and arch structure. The Tarahumara in the study ran at a range of easy paces, with many clustering around 7:30 per mile. The two groups did not differ in height, leg length, or body mass.

The CS runners were nearly eight years younger than the MS runners. More importantly, 75 percent of the CS runners landed on their heels, roughly the same percentage found in lab and road-race studies of western runners. Only 30 percent of the MS runners landed on their heels, a significant difference.

The MS runners were also significantly less likely to “overstride” than the CS runners. In other words, they were much less likely to reach their front foot beyond the knee at touchdown. Many running form experts believe this is a central tenet of good running form. There was no significant difference between groups for stride frequency. The MS runners hit the road with significantly more-flexed knees and hips, and significantly more plantarflexion at the ankles (toes pointed downward v. upward). These differences all disappeared at mid-stride.

Lieberman appears to be growing ever more interested in arch structure. In the new study, he found no significant difference in arch height between groups, but “arch stiffness” was almost twice as great in the MS group, and two of the CS runners actually had flat feet.

This finding, Lieberman writes, “suggests that the Tarahumara who wear huaraches had stronger intrinsic muscles that lead to a stiffer longitudinal arch.” In theory, this could lead to fewer injuries and more energy-return, although Lieberman himself makes no such claims.

That’s because he has grown weary of the way some runners interpret his studies, jumping to simple and unjustified conclusions. His new paper could not be more cautionary in tone. It includes many sentences such as the following. “There is much more to running form than strike type.” And, “Many limitations caution against over interpreting the results of this study.”

And this classic: “Finally, it is worth considering the relevance of these results for the majority of runners who grow up wearing shoes, rarely if ever run ultramarathons, and are habituated to conventional running shoes. Evidence that traditional Tarahumara who wear huaraches mostly avoid rearfoot landings on flat surfaces at moderate speeds is hardly justification for someone to switch to minimal shoes and stop heel striking.”

It's statements like these that lend credence to Lieberman's running research. He's first and foremost a scientist and evolutionary biologist. He knows how we got here, and knows there is infinite variation within our shared heritage. We’re the same, but different. Evolution hasn’t stopped; it’s continuous, with all the good and bad that implies.

The paper, “Strike type variation among Tarahumara Indians in minimal sandals versus contentional running shoes” is published in the open-access Journal of Sport and Health Science. Free full text.

http://www.runnersworld.com/minimali...humara-indians

This is a pretty good read along the same lines...


http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidde.../dp/0307279189

minimalist running to me is defined as jogging slowly to the coffee shop....

...the closest coffee shop.

At my age, the only places I run are to the table and the toilet.

ROTF.. Funny

I've been rather impressed with Anton Krupicka's running style. Yeah, he's one of the best trail runners in the world, but his basics are worth paying attention to.

Go on YouTube and look up videos of him. Minimally-padded shoes. Very short strides, rapid pace, low impact, no foot slapping. The documentary "Unbreakable: The Western States" also has a lot of valuable footage as he starts fresh and after exhaustion sets in towards the latter parts of the race.

http://www.ws100film.com/

I'm really liking the min running deal.
I've found that short steps so that your lower leg is vertical upon foot plant is key to flat or ball of the foot running. You just speed up.
That's especially important for rough terrain and rocky ground.
If the leg is vertical your muscles absorb the shock, overextend as a sprinter does and your heel/knee/joints take the shock.
Watch a slow mo of a sprint and you can see the shock/pounding going up the bone structure.
I can see how folks overdo/hurt themselves if their stride is wrong combined with min shoes.
With min shoes your muscles/ligaments extend further (no built up heel to limit downward travel) so it should be done slowly until your ligaments 'stretch' a bit and a slow start warm up period is important to.
I've also found I can run further with less energy expended which seems to be strange as I do take more strides.
The only downside for me is I cannot daydream while I run...I have to pay attention to where I put my foot (trail running) so as not to stomp a rock.

Dr. Nick's Running Blog
 

Here is something I stumbled on several weeks ago. Dr. Campitelli is a podiatrist who also likes to run. His studies show how the minimalist style of running actually strengthens and improves weak feet.

http://www.drnicksrunningblog.com/tw...imalist-shoes/

It is worthwhile to get a minimalist shoe with a rock plate, so that if you do hit a rock, you lower the risk of fracturing the foot. I've always had good luck with the removable spike cross country shoes, since they have an integrated plate (essentially a sheet of somewhat pliable plastic) in the forefoot. I've also taken to using a more padded zero drop shoe (Altra is my preference) in really rocky areas. While it does decrease proprioception, the added padding is more forgiving on the forefoot and allows for an overall more comfortable run. The zero drop still allows for a more forward running gait.

Watch any Kenyan running video where they are running in their home country with no shoes, that is the gait that everyone here is trying to mimic. Short strides, and when you want to go faster don't increase the stride length but increase the cadence. Dr. Jack Daniels talks about this in his books as well (Daniels' Running Formula), which is a good reference for any type of runner.

Thanks, I think I can make it work by paying attn. not a bad thing to do anyway.
This min running thing has rejuvenated my desire to run and not just do it for the workout...so much more energy after a run for some reason using the quicker shorter stride.

It's funny, that's how I ran in High School and was made fun of and "coached" out of it. That led to getting shin splints to the point that I came to hate running.

Since reading this thread, I've been trying it on our drive and road. Even as out of shape as I am at the moment, I've come to like it enough to keep it up.

Thanks for the info!

Pat

Pat, take it easy running on hard surfaces until your feet get conditioned. You've spent the better part of your life wearing shoes that have allowed for those muscles to get deconditioned, so it will take some time to get things strengthened up. I started out running barefoot on the football field (grass not artificial turf) for a couple of weeks, increasing the distance each time (nothing major, +100 yd each time), then started going on trails. It was about 6-9 months before I was doing distance on pavement or concrete. It's more fun to run on dirt anyway.

My roads are dirt. :D Soon to be mud, when the Monsoons kick in. ;) Don't worry, though, I'm more interested in the forefoot style of running than the minimalist footwear. Our mailbox is about a half a mile away, so a couple of mile runs (or jogs) a day would do wonders for me at my age. With a beer chaser, of course. ;)

Pat