I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes.

TL;DR, the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. When you do that, your knee is locked (or at least straight) as the foot lands, which transmits the force of the landing up your leg and into your lower back.

When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it.

I have a bum knee now, for unrelated reasons, so I can't run for the time being (or possibly ever again). I was, in fact, specifically warned against it by one of my array of bodyworkers just this past week. I kinda miss it sometimes, because it actually can be quite meditative, once you get into your rhythm.

EDIT: phrasing.

EDIT 2: The "wrong" under discussion in The Fine Article might have more to do with why we run than how. Though, if so, premising the argument in "evolution" is perhaps specious. Thanks, follow-ups, for pointing that out more clearly.

> he believes running barefoot is more natural—and less likely to result in injury.

This has always bothered me, and, even on HN, it still bothers me. Too many experts.

I ran track and XC (HS, DIII, then DI for a season), did 100+ miles/week, won a half marathon, etc. Reasonably successful without any injuries, over ~15 years. Even I would get constant advice from everyone. Still do.

"You're running too much." "Your back looks too stiff." "Your shoes don't fit." "Don't do that with your hands." "You're landing on your heel too much."

Eventually you stop listening to everyone, even your coach. Running (and most sports) would do well to follow science and have a cited source following every statement. It's a little absurd when someone tells me I'm going to get injured if I don't do more barefoot running. I've been wearing this same model of Brooks shoe since I was 15. If you can give me a link to an article on Pubmed, I might read it.

"The first thing I’d say is, you’re probably not doing it right. Most people dislike running because they have memories of things like running for a bus. That kind of running is usually deeply unpleasant, almost vomit-inducing. Most beginners give up when they get injured because they’ve done too much, too soon. Most of the benefits from running derive from going very slowly."

I find this premise to be correct - and can get people who say "I could never run X miles" to do so, enjoyable sometimes, just by slowing down their pace.

However, even as someone who is a running apparel ambassador who runs up to 80 miles per week, races multiple marathons and ultramarathons a year - I have a family, a full-time job, and occasional freelance work!

So even I would love to go on 2-4 hour mountain trail runs daily, it is hard to find the time to do this. Hell, I have a treadmill in my garage to sneak in shorter runs and still be home around my family.

And I'm more than happy to spread the gospel of long, slow distance running - as it is meditative, mood stabilizing, and underpins aerobic development and fat burning.

But I am willing to suggest all sorts of activity: hiking, soccer, basketball, 5K run training, cycling, mountain biking, marathon training, track workouts, climbing, long urban walks, tennis, weight training with treadmill jogging for warmups and cool down, boxing workouts, etc. I do think the premise that it's wrong to treat running as a sport is flawed - I think we can treat it as a sport, or not treat it as a sport. Or both! That depends on the individual.

If it gets you moving and your heart rate elevated into those aerobic ranges, do what works for you. Running barefeet in nature for hours at a time for the simple sake of running is great - but doing something that fits into your interests, geography, and time schedule can provide a great, long-term balance to the modern life.

> "The fact is, I am a jogger, but it has connotations of pastel tracksuits and sweatbands from the 1980s and sort of stinks of Thatcherism and Reaganomics, and all that individualism. Runner just sounds cooler, doesn’t it?"

I find this portion of the interview remarkable at a meta level.

1) Associating the word "jogger" with conservative politics and individualist philosophy is absolutely bizarre to me. Why? Because it happened to grow popular during the 1980's? Does that mean that the x86 computer revolution has conservative connotations also? I thought that JFK popularized jogging back in the 60's, anyway. I'm so confused here.

2) Feeling the need to rename things in order to avoid connotations, even if the renaming makes little sense, is a curious impulse. The word "jogging" has some distinct layers of meaning, that are lost when you simply collapse it into "running". If you DO somehow negatively link jogging to Ronald Reagan, then wouldn't it be better to try and coin a new term?

3) I find this sort of exchange more and more common on the Internet these days. Discussing jogging, or what one ate for breakfast that morning... and seamlessly segueing in and out of politics or culture war banter. Not so long ago, that would be considered awkward and jarring (quite frankly, it would still be considered awkward and jarring if the subject had expressed a pro-Reagan view instead). Until quite recently, basic social norms would have one tiptoe into such things more gingerly. An interesting shift.

I'm lucky enough to live in Miami and run with him sometimes. When he started the streak he went barefoot and later began wearing shoes, if you can call them that, his favorite are NB with about 2,500 miles on them that seem to have more hole(s) than material left.

If you can, do a run with the Raven and get a nickname, if not please get his book:

https://www.amazon.com/Running-Raven-Amazing-Community-Inspi...

And that's the absolute truth.

http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/

  1. Walk.
  2. Increase pace until uncomfortable.
  3. Back off pace until comfortable.

I'm an avid runner. I agree when the barefoot movement talks about using your legs, knees and ankles as springs, and that too cushioned shoes let you beat the road without having to adapt, replacing some short-term discomfort by perhaps long term injury caused by bashing your stiff legs on the road for long distances.

But I also sit down most of the day on weekdays, and even though I stretch, that spring is mostly gone after a long workday. I run too heavily then, and I really prefer to have some protective footwear to compensate for my inflexibility on those days.

Another problem is that our prehistoric selves didn't run on hard asphalt for hours, which many of us have to do in our current environment.

So, even for those of us who are fit and athletic, this is more about getting the balance right considering our lifestyle and environment. We might have evolved to run, but not on asphalt and not after sitting down the whole day.

Don't clock up miles barefoot if/when your core physical strength or muscle flexibility don't allow feline agility. You're at least as likely to get injured. Adapt to the situation and listen to your body.

First, it filters incoming air of particulates like dust and pollen--gross stuff you don't want in your lungs. Over an hour of running, you can easily breathe 600L of air, in a city, that's a lot of pollution.

Second, it calms you. Breathing through the nose is a meditation exercise that automatically calms your mind.

Third, it reduces dehydration. Most of the water not lost through sweat and through the skin is lost through evaporation from the mouth. Through the nose instead, the same filtration system that keeps dust particles out serves as a condensation site for some of the moisture that would otherwise exit from your lungs.

Problem is, you can't run super fast breathing through your nose because of the limitation in breath volume from the restricted pathway. The article is right; IMO you should not run faster than what you can manage through nose breathing alone.

Having reached 50+ my estimate is that only 1 in 20 of the people i have known and who has been running still do. Perhaps even less.

You simply get too many injuries. Your cortisol levels rise. You destroy your joints etc. etc.

I also find it very hard to imagine that running would have been better for some imaginable forefathers who had to run barefoot in nature with no roads.

I have to imagine running like hell to escape predators as a major part of our evolutionary past. It would seem consistent with the effectiveness of high intensity interval training as well as how satisfying the feeling of exhaustion after running as fast as you can for a while.

Running as a sport is, in essence, forcing ourselves to do something we supposedly needed so much as a species that we evolved to be good at it. Our lifestyle has changed dramatically and we obviously don't need it much anymore.

Perhaps we should be running instead of walking whenever possible? I used to do that when I was younger and more impatient (I hated taxis, too), but having sweaty clothes isn't socially acceptable in most cases. Perhaps some research to alleviate this problem would help?

Edit: this looks like an interesting starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation...

I stopped reading right here. Ask a podiatrist if they've seen a rise in plantar fasciitis as a result of barefoot running. Not everyone has the biomechanics to jump into barefoot running[1]. Not everyone who has the biomechanics can simply transition to barefoot running[2] - you have to ease into it[3].

As soon as you assign species-wide labels and claim something is wrong, assume it's a clickbaity title that will likely follow Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

[1] http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/barefoot-running-problems

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/20...

[3] http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/6FAQ.html#Who%20shoul...?

I'll offer a few of my favorites:

"Wow, your maximum heart rate is way too high. You should slow down."

"Your resting heart rate seems pretty low, are you alright?"

"You're going to develop arthritis running that much."

"You shouldn't run outdoors on pavement that much, it's bad for your knees."

"You shouldn't run on a treadmill that much, it's bad for your knees."

"Your stride is too short."

The worst is when people take legitimate science, or attempts at legitimate science, and use vague pseudoscience that resembles it to prescribe something I don't need. No, my heart rate is not too high at 215, I assure you, despite what your catch all formula says. No, I don't need to go barefoot running. No, I don't need to run at exactly 140bpm to be at my personal "fat burning zone."

Which model exactly? :-)

Stay away from roads and sidewalks, if you can. Trees give shade, and shade is cool and pleasant and helps you husband your energy for finding interesting things, rather than sweating.

Keep your phone in your pocket. Keep your earbuds there, too. They put you somewhere other than where you are, and what's the point of that? Besides, you can't chat with people if your ears are blocked.

Chat with people. Say hello. Make eye contact. Exercise the social skills that help you make unplanned interactions mutually enjoyable. We don't do that any more. We should. Many fear it. Do not blame them. Give them the opportunity to overcome that fear, if they so choose. If they don't, leave them in peace. Another time, perhaps.

Pictures are okay, but be sparing. Use them when there's something you'll want to share. Don't use them so much that you forget why you want to share something. Me, I'm an amateur photographer. For me, pictures are often part of the point. Unless they are for you, too, use them as aide-memoire - not in place of it.

Cut through the woods. Go up hills. Go down hills. Go through streams, or over if they're narrow enough. Remind yourself of the simple pleasure to be had in using your body - jumping, climbing, shifting your balance to go down a 45° slope on your feet instead of your face.

Take chances. Don't shy away from decrepit buildings. Investigate them. There's always a way in, and it's amazing what's to be found there. Be aware of your environment, and be careful - not everyone you meet this way is friendly. But many are. Don't let fear hold you back, because you'll always wonder what you missed. And this life is transitory, anyway. Don't waste the opportunities that come along while you're living it.

Wear shoes, sturdy and comfortable as you like. You don't want the thing that holds you back to be that you'll tear up your feet if you go that way, either. For buildings, I recommend eight- or nine-hole logger boots - welted full-grain leather with good, arch-supporting insoles. Take care of them. They'll take care of you.

(I always wear boots like that. I may be biased in my recommendation. But they've stopped more holes than I can count from ending up in my feet. Wax polish, thinly applied, and buffed in long strokes with a damp - not wet - rag. No dress shoes ever looked so fine.)

Above all, enjoy yourself. Enjoy meeting the people and places you meet. Enjoy your environment, and the changes you make in it over the course of a day's peregrination. Enjoy the changes your environment makes in you. Enjoy not giving a fuck about email and parking. Enjoy the feeling of using your body, instead of just inhabiting it. Enjoy being where you are. Enjoy the ache of well-worked muscles and the stretch of your ribs as you breathe deeper than you can when you spend all day sitting down. Enjoy the deep sleep that comes of exhaustion honestly earned. Enjoy the fresh eyes with which you wake. Enjoy a simple pleasure no longer forgotten.

Enjoy!

There is a link to a study in the first paragraph of the article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_...

> The researchers identified a range of physical traits that suggest human ancestors evolved as distance runners. The adaptations helped them chase down prey and compete more effectively with the speedier carnivores on the open plains of Africa, the study says.

> The researchers say adaptations for running stretch back more than two million years, allowing humans to evolve from our apelike ancestors Australopithecus.

> "We think running is one of the most transforming events in human history," Bramble added. "We are arguing the emergence of humans is tied to the evolution of running."

As for the long-term health effects of one or the other, that's still being debated and might be dependent on the joint health of the individual runner. See [1].

[1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2013/12000/Forefo...