The New York Times has a nice article in today's paper about the current thoughts on barefoot running and the chagrin of the shoe manufacturers.
The article also mentions the book Born to Run by Christopher McDougall which I read earlier this year. It's about the multiple injuries suffered by the author that drove him to discover the running style of the Tarahumara, a native Mexican-desert dwelling population. Running essentially barefoot, the Tarahumara are like a human gazelle/mountain goat and beat the pants off most competitors, especially in Ultramarathons like this one. (McDougall's book does spend a lot of time cooing over ultramarathoning and its stars. A little tedious for me, but surely a lovefest for those in the sport.)
If you've ever studied foot biomechanics (I promise you I am really a treat at cocktail parties. Really. I don't bore anyone.) you know there is a moment called footstrike or heelstrike when the heel initially touches down on the ground to begin a new step. In barefoot running (or gladiator-sandal running, or Chalcolithic-sandal running, etc) the foot doesn't strike with the heel, but with the mid-foot. This is essential for foot safety if you don't have any external cushioning on the foot. Only some of the shock-absorption capacity is in the heel; it can accommodate the energy/shock from walking, but not the increased impact forces from running. As a result, barefoot running is more upright than running in Nikes or Asics or whatever cushioned shoe you've got.
Here are Nike's Zoom Mawler Track and Field shoe. Look at the rearfoot area: it's thin with very little shock absorbing material there. Sprinters spend no time on their heels. Go to 1:12 and watch the slow-motion of the sprinter's feet. Their weight is not in their heels.
To me, the next question is do barefoot sprinters go faster than modern-technology sprinters, or is this paradox only applicable to endurance runners? I'm wondering if the Tarahumara put spikes on their sandals would it increase their speed?
--Donna
