Music, Exercise & the Nervous System

Four laps around this radio equals a mile.

Many of us listen to music while we exercise. (Some of us even proceed to sing and dance too.) Do you think it makes you stronger? Faster? Is it easier for you to grind through your workout with music? The New York Times Health Section tells us more about why we like music and how it affects our performance.

The Times piece describes research done at Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences in Liverpool, England. Twelve male cyclists listened to music set to three different tempos. Popular music was played either at the regular tempo, increased by 10 percent, or decreased by 10 percent. Researchers tracked heart rate, power output, pedal cadence, enjoyment of the music and perception of exertion.

Participants rode faster, produced more power, had higher heart rates and enjoyed the faster music more. In contrast, slower music brought on slowe rides, less power, lower heart rates and less enjoyment of the music which stayed the same. Interestingly, participants perception of their effort didn’t drop with the increased music but rather it went up. Seems the music motivated them to ride harder.

There may be an upper limit to the effect of music on our performance though. Research shows the following:

“While running on a treadmill at 85% of aerobic capacity (VO2max), listening to music will not make the task seem easier in terms of information that the muscles and vital organs send the brain. Nevertheless, the runner is likely to find the experience more pleasurable. The bottom line is that during a hard session, music has limited power to influence what the athlete feels, but it does have considerable leverage on how the athlete feels.”

What we’ve got here is a nice thorough intermingling of auditory input, psychological motivation, and physiological performance. It’s fascinating that though we may very much feel the effect of exhaustive work, we can through music actually perceive the work differently. Does anyone still think there’s some sort of difference between the “body” and the “mind?”

Chronic Pain & Z-Health

I find chronic pain to be a tremendously fascinating topic. It’s all around us and it’s mysterious. Even though it’s 2010 and we’re the beneficiaries of thousands of years of medical advances, we still have trouble fixing various lingering aches and pains.

Reconceptualizing Pain According to Modern Pain Science comes from the wise Australians at Body in Mind. Much of the world’s population is wracked with chronic pain. It seems anyone near the age of 30 has at least a little bit of mysterious lingering pain. Many a neck, shoulder, knee and/or low back has been treated over and over again yet the pain stays. Why? Further, chronic pain is typically very different from acute pain. There’s no blood, perhaps no swelling, and the pain often comes on gradually and for no apparent reason. Chronic pain is very different from the pain of a sprained ankle or dislocated shoulder. So what are we dealing with? The article makes four key points:

Pain does not provide a measure of the state of the tissues. (i.e. Pain doesn’t necessarily = injury.)
Pain is modulated by many factors from across somatic, psychological and social domains.
The relationship between pain and the state of the tissues becomes less predictable as pain persists.
Pain can be conceptualized as a conscious correlate of the implicit perception that tissue is in danger. (The PERCEPTION of a threat may generate more pain than the actual threat itself.)

Many Z-Health methods are based on these factors. We recognize that pain may be rooted in any number of sources including emotions and stress. We also recognize that the nervous system is in charge of pain, and that the site of the pain is often not the site of the problem. We may be wasting our time if we spend time at or around the painful area.

For example, Z-Health practitioners may make use of opposing joint motion to address pain. If someone has left knee pain then we might go to the right elbow and ask the client to perform elbow circles. To take it a step further, we may ask the client in what position does he or she experience pain? Does the left knee hurt when the hip is extended (leg behind the torso) or flexed (leg in front of the torso)? If the left knee hurts in hip flexion then we may put the client’s right arm into extension (arm behind the torso) and then call for elbow circles. Many times I’ve seen a client’s pain reduce in moments as a result of these types of drills.

I’ve seen big-toe pain reduced through opposite thumb mobility. I’ve seen shoulder pain reduced through opposite hip mobility. Low-back pain may be eliminated through neck mobility drills. (This stuff is wild!)

Further, if either our visual or vestibular reflexes are faulty then the result may be joint pain. The nervous system is sending a message: Change something. Our eyes and inner-ear structures are the seats of very powerful forces. If these two mechanisms aren’t working together then the nervous system will perceive a threat. The nervous system can use pain to alert us to that threat. Addressing the visual and vestibular systems is vital if we’re combating chronic pain.

None of this obviates the need for other diagnostics. MRIs and X-Rays may indeed show structural problems contributing to pain. Various drugs may cause pain in some regions of the body. Some cholesterol meds may cause low-back and leg pain for instance. The main point here though is that pain is often a very complex issue, the causes of which may not be obvious. You can have power over your pain if you recognize how it works.

Please go to the link above and read the article to learn more about how chronic pain works. For further reading on Z-Health, Todd Hargrove’s Better Movement is an excellent source.

Results of three military studies showed that prescribing shoes based on foot shape made no difference in the rate at which injuries occurred in Army, Marine and Air Force basic trainees, who spend quite a bit of time running. That’s “no” as in none, sports fans.

Any runner is familiar with the idea that certain shoes are made for certain types of feet. We’ve got motion control shoes, neutral cushioned shoes, stability shoes…. The idea being that these different types of shoes help guide feet in the healthiest most efficient manner. This concept has been challenged by three military studies. Army, Air Force and Marine studies all had similar results.

“We found no scientific basis for choosing running shoes based on foot type,” said Bruce Jones, M.D., injury prevention program manager at U.S. Army Public Health Command (Provisional), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

The most recent study looked at 1400 Marine recruits. Men and women were randomly assigned into two groups. One group got shoes matched to their foot type, the other group received stability shoes. Similar to Army and Air Force studies, the recruits with shoes prescribed according to foot type experienced the same rate of injuries as those in the control group, regardless of other factors, such as age, sex, race and smoking habits.

I wonder what the shoe companies have to say?

These findings echo statements found in Noakes’ Lore of Running. He refers to a study by Stacoff (1998) of orthotics. The study found that the orthotics–thought to control pronation of the foot–didn’t actually change ankle motion in the test subjects. Though this study refers to orthotics, it’s quite likely that shoes designed to control pronation produce similar results. So if shoes are prescribed to a runner based on his or her foot strike pattern, and if we’re expecting to see that foot strike pattern altered in a certain way, then the expected outcome is unlikely.

That’s not to say the right shoes and/or orthotics won’t work for an individual. But the mechanism by which these shoes and inserts work is unclear. At the very least, these studies suggest that we don’t really know why a certain shoe or orthotic may work for someone. Nor can we predict accurately the right type of shoe/orthotic someone needs based on looking at their foot type.

Practice Makes Perfect: An Analysis

We know that skill building and retention of skills involves practice. We practice swimming, typing, putting, free throws, dance moves–all with the expectation that we’ll improve those skills. I think most of us would agree that swimming probably won’t do much to improve our putting. Nor will practicing our cursive handwriting improve our soccer skills. In other words, we need to practice specifically those skills and tasks that want to improve.

To that point, we in the exercise field are familiar with the SAID Principle, or Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand. It means we adapt to the stresses and stimulation which we’re subjected to. It’s the SAID principle at work when a swimmer swims and thus gets better at swimming. Or why a boxer improves his skill through boxing. In order to improve a skill then we’d better practice that skill. A new study however tells us that if we’re willing to deviate just a bit during our practice sessions then we’ll probably learn better.

Why (Smart) Practice Makes Perfect comes from Science Daily and Athletic Edge: Does Practice Really Make Perfect comes from Time Magazine. Both pieces profile research done by USC and UCLA neuroscientists. The study featured six groups who practiced an arm movement pattern that mimicked a pattern on a computer screen. The more accurate the subjects’ arm movements the better they scored. Three of the groups practiced the arm movement only while three other groups practiced the arm movement plus other arm movements that were similar to the target movement. The groups were then tested 24 hours after their practice sessions. The variable practice group scored significantly better than the rote practice group. Why?

“In the variable practice structure condition, you’re basically solving the motor problem anew each time. If I’m just repeating the same thing over and over again as in the constant practice condition, I don’t have to process it very deeply,” said study senior author Carolee Winstein, professor of biokinesiology and physical therapy at Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry at USC.

“We gravitate toward a simple, rote practice structure because we’re basically lazy, and we don’t want to work hard. But it turns out that memory is enhanced when we engage in practice that is more challenging and requires us to reconstruct the activity,” Winstein said.

“While it may be harder during practice to switch between tasks … you end up remembering the tasks better later than you do if you engage in this drill-like practice,” Winstein said.

This research is particularly fascinating as it coincides very much with a book I’m reading, Norman Doidge’s The Brain That Changes Itself. In it, Doidge profiles various individuals with brain injuries and diseases and describes their efforts at rehabilitation. Often these people have lost use of language skills, thinking or cognitive skills, and/or their ability to move or their motor skills. They must focus to learn anew skills that are common to most of us. It is through intense concentration and focus that these individuals are able to regain these damaged brain functions. It seems a key aspect of this process isn’t just the learning of new skills–but it’s the very act of concentrating that brings success.

What might this mean for fitness enthusiasts and athletes? It means that if you’ve tuned out during your workout then you’re probably not getting all that you could be getting out of your effort. It means that doing the same workout over and over will yield fewer benefits than adding challenging variety to your routine.

In gyms, I see a lot of people who tuned out long ago. They sit on the same bicep curl machine and curl the same weight the same way they did the last 1000 times they came in to workout. Or they’re on the same elliptical machine going at the same pace for the same amount of time as they’ve always done.

Clients often struggle with new exercises. They may be very comfortable with certain movements but try and add something new and it can be a bit of a battle sometimes. Our brains aren’t always happy about making our limbs move in new ways! Kettlebell and Olympic lifts for instance, require more skill and coordination than calf raises or pec deck flyes. But if we look to this latest research it may make sense that just as lifting the barbell is healthy for our bones and muscles, the challenge of learning these new complicated tasks is in fact just as healthy for our brains.

MRIs & Docs May Not Have All the Answers

We’d like to think that our modern medical technology and treatment methods can diagnose and heal any problem. PET scans, CAT scans, MRIs and X-Rays allow us to peer inside the body and examine tissues and organs. Our MDs and surgeons are the beneficiaries of hundreds of years of evolving medical education. But guess what! Not every ache and pain has an obvious cause and many docs are as mystified by our ailments as we are.

New Study Finds 70 Percent of Able-Bodied Hockey Players Have Abnormal Hip and Pelvis MRIs comes from Science Daily. The piece explains the findings of a study conducted by the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine. The study used the MRIs of the pelvis and hips of 39 collegiate and professional hockey players. Seventy percent of the images showed abnormalities yet only two players reported pain. In other words, most of the players had what we might identify as “injuries” yet only two of them were “hurt.” So this goes to the issue of just how valuable are these sorts of diagnostic tools.

Matthew Silvis, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Orthopedics at Hershey Medical Center at Penn State University College of Medicine stated,

“Unexpectedly, the majority of players had some abnormality in their MRI, but it didn’t limit their playing ability. The study raises many questions, but its value to surgeons is to recognize that imaging doesn’t replace good clinical judgment, which includes a detailed history and complete physical exam. This study might make you hesitate to read too much into an MRI.”

A lot of us probably assume the MRI is very precise and can show us exactly why our back, knee or shoulder is in pain. Yet we may need to think about whether or not we’re looking at chickens or eggs here. Do these abnormalities cause pain, or are they simply coincidental to pain?

Obviously the only reason anyone gets an MRI outside of a study like this is because we’re in pain and we need to know why. (I have yet to meet anyone who had an MRI simply out of curiosity about what they look like on the inside.) So automatically we have a self-selected group to study. If this study is any indication then in fact it’s entirely likely that people who feel healthy may indeed appear to be injured according to their MRI. Thus what is seen on an MRI and attributed to our pain–bone spurs, a torn labrum, or a herniated disks for instance–may or may not be the cause of our pain. Perhaps the source of our pain is something else entirely. The point is the MRI is not always as precise as we’d like to believe.

I’ve had personal experience with this sort of situation. Several years ago I was performing a barbell snatch and I felt a pop followed by very sharp pain in my left shoulder. A cortisone shot helped only temporarily. I underwent an MRI and according to the image there was no serious injury. It wasn’t until a surgeon had a look inside my shoulder and saw that my supraspinatus tendon was about 90% detached. After he reattached the tendon he later explained how MRIs can be helpful but they’re not always very precise.

On a simiar theme, a recent New York Times story examines to what degree doctors sought medical attention for their aches and pains. You might be surprised to learn that docs who were interviewed rarely visted other docs when they’re hurting. (The Times story also references the MRI story mentioned above.) Doctor-athlete, Paul D. Thompson, a marathon runner and a cardiologist at Hartford Hospital in Hartford said the following:

“I think most folks should not go, because most general doctors don’t know a lot about running injuries,” he said, adding, “Most docs, often even the good sports docs, then will just tell you to stop running anyway, so the first thing is to stop running yourself.”

So all-and-all, as much as we’d love to believe that the modern mainstream medical profession has all the answers–or at least the tools to find all the answers, it simply ain’t so in a lot of cases. The fact of the matter is most MDs don’t fully understand human movement and how all the parts of the body–bones, muscles, organs, and most importantly the nervous system–act together in a 3-D world governed by gravity. Just look at how many specialists there are around us. There are podiatrists for the feet, spine specialists, knee specialists, shoulder specialists, low-back doctors, etc. There are surgeons that specialize in opening us up and tinkering about. There are docs to analyze blood, the eyes, reproductive organs, the heart, our minds…. But guess what, we’re all one big system! If we or the people who are assessing us believe that we’re just a bunch of separate parts then we’re way off the mark. And if your doc just wants to feed you pain medicine–definitely go get another opinion. (As one acquaintance put it, “Your pain wasn’t caused by an ibuprofen deficiency.”)

(BTW, please don’t take this as my hating on the entire medical profession. If I’m in a car crash and I’ve got a piece of steel stuck in me, please go get me a surgeon and not a massage therapist or chiro.)

Recognize that the arms and neck are highly affected by the feet. Weak eye muscles can cause bad posture and thus neck pain. Medication for our high cholesterol may cause low-back pain. Shoulder pain may be rooted in poor wrist and hand mechanics. Even if the tissue of a years-old injury has healed, the ability to move and control the limb may not have been restored–and that may be causing pain in any number of areas. The bad mood you’re in may be driving that aggravating hip pain.

The body and the nervous system is tremendously complex and all its parts are highly interactive at all times. Always keep this in mind if you’re in pain and looking for relief.

The Role of Exercise in Weight Loss

Want to lose weight? The tried and true advice has always been “Exercise and eat right.” Hard to argue with that. Burn calories via exercise and eat less and/or eat better quality food. Done and done. Recently however, the role of exercise in this process has been questioned. Time magazine went so far as to tell us Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin. Other research has suggested that the eating part of the equation is more powerful than the exercise part. Further, from experience as a personal trainer, I’ve seen many a gym member tell themselves “Hey, I’m exercising. I can eat whatever I want!” I have yet to see anyone succeed following that route. So what if any role does exercise play in shaping our physique?

The New York Times has weighed in with a very interesting, nuanced and informative article on the topic. Weighing the Evidence on Exercise tells us among other things that exercise alone may not make you lean, but that it will likely help keep you thin if and when you get there. Further, it seems exercise has a different effect on the appetites of men vs. women.

“When you look at the results in the National Weight Control Registry,” Harvard researcher Barry Braun says, “you see over and over that exercise is one constant among people who’ve maintained their weight loss.”

The article cites two studies to this effect One by the American College of Sports Medicine demonstrated that appetite was blunted in men who ran on a treadmill for 1.5 hrs. In another study by Harvard researchers reported in the American Journal of Physiology, men and women walked on treadmills and their appetites were monitored. The men showed similar results to the ACSM study. The women however showed increased appetite. It seems that female physiology is very favorably given over to storing energy (as fat–eeeeeeech!!!)

The Harvard study found other very valuable information which I’ll get to in a moment but first, more about who was studied. The weight-change history of 34,000 women was tracked for 13 years. (The large sample size and length of the study are two strengths.) The average age of the women at the start of the study was 54 years. Now the important information as reported by the Times:

“During that time, the women gained, on average, six pounds. Some packed on considerably more. But a small subset gained far less, coming close to maintaining the body size with which they started the study. Those were the women who reported exercising almost every day for an hour or so. (emphasis is mine) The exercise involved was not strenuous.”

Finally, the Times article discusses a study from the University of Colorado. In this study, rats were fattened and allowed to be sedentary for a time. The rats’ diets were then switched to low-calorie fare and half of them were made to run on treadmills for about 30 minutes a day. (Strangely, Jillian Michaels was not involved.) The results of the study as reported by the Times are as follows:

“Then the fun began. For the final eight weeks of the experiment, the rats were allowed to relapse, to eat as much food as they wanted. The rats that had not been running on the treadmill fell upon the food eagerly. Most regained the weight they lost and then some.”

But the exercising rats metabolized calories differently. They tended to burn fat immediately after their meals, while the sedentary rats’ bodies preferentially burned carbohydrates and sent the fat off to be stored in fat cells. The running rats’ bodies, meanwhile, also produced signals suggesting that they were satiated and didn’t need more kibble. Although the treadmill exercisers regained some weight, their relapses were not as extreme. Exercise ‘re-established the homeostatic steady state between intake and expenditure to defend a lower body weight,’ the study authors concluded. Running had remade the rats’ bodies so that they ate less. (emphasis is mine)

To reinforce the message from all this, Science Daily reports on another study not mentioned in the Times article: Diet Alone Will Not Likely Lead to Significant Weight Loss, Study Suggests. Here, Oregon Health & Science University studied monkeys that were fed a high-fat diet for several years. They then were placed on a low-fat diet for a month. The important information is this:

“Surprisingly, there was no significant weight loss at the end of the month,” explained OHSU post-doctoral fellow Elinor Sullivan, Ph.D. “However, there was a significant change in the activity levels for these monkeys. Naturally occurring levels of physical activity for the animals began to diminish soon after the reduced-calorie diet began. When caloric intake was further reduced in a second month, physical activity in the monkeys diminished even further.”

So what’s the take-home message from all this? First, as a personal trainer, I find it highly interesting the actual role that exercise seems to play in weight loss. It’s not so much a direct influence as it is something that changes our bodies over the long haul, and sets the stage for us to stay trim. Beyond that, think of this evidence in light of research (here, and here for instance) showing that exercise alone won’t do the trick when it comes to weight loss and we have a very familiar message: To lose weight we must eat right and exercise.

Beating Obesity

The latest edition of the Atlantic features an excellent article on our nation’s struggle with obesity. Beating Obesity is written by Marc Ambinder and it’s a thoughtful, in-depth look at the political and social ramifications of this seemingly losing battle. We learn about the major players including First Lady Michelle Obama, the food industry and the insurance companies. (Ambinder himself struggled with obesity and eventually underwent bariatric surgery as a solution.) Ambinder does a very good job in discussing the issues of individual responsibility and the environmental challenges we face such as food at every checkout line (not just at the grocery store), ever growing portion sizes, and junk food that is cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables.

Most importantly he examines the moral and demographic issues of obesity. He notes the following:

“Black children are more at peril of becoming obese than white children; black women are more than 50 percent more likely to be obese than white women. ‘At the current rate of increase,’ epidemiologists noted in a recent article in Obesity, ‘it will take less than 30 years for all black women to become overweight or obese.’ Obesity rates are above average among Mexican American boys, as they are among Hispanics generally. Obesity rates among young American Indians tend to be nearly twice the national average.

Please check out the article. It’s an excellent piece.

Try cherries before and after your next long ride, run or grueling workout.

Here’s another weapon to add to your endurance training recovery arsenal: cherries. Marathon Runners Should Pick Cherries for a Speedy Recovery comes from Science Daily and it profiles a recent study out of Northumbria University in England. Marathoners who ran the London Marathon were split into two groups. Twenty marathon runners drank either a tart cherry blend juice or a placebo drink twice a day for five days before taking part in the London Marathon and for two days afterward. The story summarizes the research findings as follows:

“The findings indicated that the group who drank the cherry juice recovered their strength more rapidly than the control group over the 48-hour period following the marathon. Inflammation was also reduced in the cherry juice group, as was oxidative stress, a potentially damaging response that can be caused by strenuous physical activity, particularly long distance endurance exercise.”

It might be reasonable to conclude that cherries could aid cyclists, swimmers, cross-country skiers and maybe strength & power athletes as well. More research will be needed to confirm this guess. In any event, adding cherries to any or all of your recovery strategies may be a simple and tasty idea. (For more recovery methods, check out recovery nutrition, cold water immersion, and caffeine.)

Sounds like good news! However I can see it now… Sports nutrition stores will soon be stocking and promoting cherry juice extract–in a pill!! The stuff will cost more than cherries and probably won’t work. Warm weather is coming and cherries will soon be in the grocery stores. Buy ’em and eat ’em.

Compulsive Eating is Similar to Drug Addiction

Obesity-related eating issues are in the news again. This time new research indicates that the physiological dynamics of overeating are the same as drug addiction. Compulsive Eating Shares Addictive Biochemical Mechanism With Cocaine, Heroin Abuse, Study Shows comes from Science Daily. The article summarizes a Scripps Research Institute study that was published recently in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

The study examined the brain chemistry of rats that were fed high-fat, high-sugar diets similar to human junk food. The rats quickly became obese and at the same time their brain chemistry showed striking changes. Pleasure centers in their brains changed and became less responsive. The result was the rats had to eat more and more in order to stimulate these regions. These dynamics of food addiction mirror those of rats addicted to cocaine and heroin. Paul J. Kenny, one of the scientists who conducted the study said,

“It presents the most thorough and compelling evidence that drug addiction and obesity are based on the same underlying neurobiological mechanisms. In the study, the animals completely lost control over their eating behavior, the primary hallmark of addiction. They continued to overeat even when they anticipated receiving electric shocks, highlighting just how motivated they were to consume the palatable food.”

A fascinating development in the study came when researchers replaced the junk food with nutritious food: the rats refused to eat. They starved for nearly two weeks after the change.

What seems to be happening to these rats (and likely to obese humans) is that consumption of highly pleasurable food overstimulates and dulls the reward centers of the brain. More food (or drugs) are needed to stimulate feelings of reward and pleasure. Without getting too technical, the neurotransmitter dopamine and it’s receptors in the brain are the key elements here. Dopamine is released in the brain by pleasurable experiences such as drug or food consumption. Consume too much of either and the brain is flooded with dopamine which is essentially bad for dopamine receptors. Over time the brain actually undergoes physical changes and addictive behavior becomes normal and very difficult to change.

The big issue to me is that overeating and obesity are very complex and not at all simple matters of will power. Personal trainers and nutritionists must realize that the brain function of the obese person is very different from the non-obese person. Simply instructing someone to eat differently rarely works and now we know very specifically why.

To that point, I’m skeptical of our various efforts to educate the public on the caloric content in our food (first in NYC and most recently on a national level.) Similarly, it seems that small taxes on soda do little to curb consumption of the sugary junk. Simply putting the information in front of our eyes or enacting a slight monetary penalty isn’t enough and I don’t believe there are many ways government can affect our food choices. (I would be curious though to see the effects of eliminating subsidies for corn, wheat and soybeans. These subsidies keep the price of junk food–which is actually quite complex if you look at the ingredients–artificially low. So this addictive food is also dirt cheap. You and I are paying for this with our taxes!) That said, my hope is that those battling to lose weight won’t give up and resign themselves to poor health by saying “I’m addicted. There’s nothing I can do.”

From what I’ve seen of successful weight loss seems very similar to what I know of overcoming addiction. That is, the individual must decide to make a change for him or herself. Until the individual knowingly makes a firm decision to change no amount of preaching, pushing or cajoling by friends, a spouse, or parents will make the difference. And it is hard work. Perhaps now by recognizing the brain chemistry of over eating we can develop more effective strategies to slim down.

Counterpoints to Barefoot Running

I think it’s important to analyze any trend or issue from several viewpoints. In the world of fitness and nutrition we see all sorts of fads come and go. Today barefoot running is gaining in popularity. I’ve posted recently on some of the research that suggests barefoot running may be healthier for the joints than shod running. So, I believe it’s worth considering doing some barefoot work whether it be gym work such as weight training or agility work; or perhaps very short runs on a soft surface such as grass. It may in fact be beneficial to work toward a full transition from shod running to barefoot running. That said, it’s vital to consider other views.

First, the Science of Sport gives us Barefoot running – new evidence, same debate. One notable point the writers make is this:

“I guarantee that the media are going to be all over this and they are going to tell you that you should be running barefoot or in Vibrams. You will hear how science has proven that being barefoot will prevent injuries, and that those of you who are injured should blame your shoes as you lob them into the garbage bin.

(This sort of observation can go for just about every new study that’s reported in the press.) I think it’s entirely likely that runners may latch on to barefoot running thinking that it’s an instant magic cure for whatever is bothering them and the results may be disastrous. (Then what will the press, physical therapists, and podiatrists say? “Barefoot running is the worst thing in the world! No one should do it ever! Then we’ll have discarded a potentially helpful tool from our toolbox.)

The article goes on to give an example of what happens when the pendulum swings too far and runners adopt something very new and very different into their training:

“And I will illustrate this with our own insight into footstrike and injury. When the Pose research was done in Cape Town, athletes basically had their footstrike patterns changed through 2 weeks of training in the new method. The biomechanical analysis found lower impact forces (sound familiar? Same as the Nature paper), and even less work on the knee joint. This was hailed as a breakthrough against running injuries, because lower impact plus lower work on the knee meant less chance of injury. Jump ahead 2 weeks, and 19 out of 20 runners had broken down injured. Why? Because their calves and ankles were murdered by the sudden change. And the science showed this – the work on the ANKLE was significantly INCREASED during the forefoot landing.”

Thus we get the very clear point that barefoot work must be added gradually into your routine. A rapid switch in running technique is probably a very bad idea. DO NOT move rapidly to replace all your shod miles with barefoot miles.

Over at the Running World According to Dean you can read Another Barefoot Running Story. He seems a bit skeptical on the issue of barefoot running. Owen Anderson at Educated Runner has presented two posts on barefoot running: Barefoot, Nearly Barefoot and Bearfoot Running; and Barefoot Running: What the Harvard Study Really Said. Both articles are again somewhat skeptical of barefoot running and running in Vibrams. Anderson’s second post is most valuable I believe in that he points out some of the limitations of the study “Foot Strike Patterns and Collision Forces in Habitually Barefoot versus Shod Runners” that appeared recently in the journal Nature.

Anderson makes this point: “The Nature investigation did disclose some interesting information about the effective mass of the foot and shank (which we won’t discuss here), but it offered no other information about the potential links between barefoot running and either injury or performance.”

He’s correct. This study was not a long term study. The study indeed showed lower impact forces at the ankle, knee and hip during barefoot running when compared to shod running, however the runners were not observed over the long term. Thus we only know what happened during the short duration of the study. This situation is indicative of most barefoot running studies. Nor did the study investigate which method–barefoot or shod–results in the fastest performances.

Further studies should be conduced looking at several points. First, long-term studies should look at injury rates of shod runners compared to barefoot or minimally shod runners. Second, we need to move beyond injury issues and look at racing performance. In other words can we run faster barefoot/minimally shod or in shoes? Third, it might be interesting to see how many people have tried to convert from running shoes to barefoot running but were unsucessful. What happened to these people?

From my point of view, none of these other posts or viewpoints have changed my thinking that some degree of barefoot work is very likely healthy for a fair number of people. It’s not necessary for anyone to permanently discard their running shoes for bare feet, but perhaps it would be valuable to consider taking the shoes off from time to time and letting the feet behave like feet.

Denver Fitness Journal

All Things Health and Fitness by Kyle Norman, MS, CSCS, FMS, RRCA Running Coach

Health & Fitness News