Maybe I can chime in here, I've been running competitively through HS, College, and some marathons after. Barefoot running is only revolutionary to some people because it correctly aligns the incentives to have proper form. If you're barefoot/vibram running with proper form, you'll pretty much instantly feel all this discomfort of the impacts in your heel, knee, and back. This discomfort doesn't exist when you're in a very cushy pair of trainers. This is why it's become such a big thing, people all of a sudden understand why running can be fun, because they're doing it correctly for the first time in their lives.

I don't think barefoot running is inherently bad for you long term or anything, I've had friends do 80+ mpw, including trail/gravel running in vibrams with no problem. Those guys/gals are < 140 lbs with impeccable form though.

I think barefoot running can be an amazing way to "teach" people the correct way to run, but for most people, they should take that form and move it over to a shoe that does have a bit of impulse reduction. There are many steps between vibrams and super cushy shoes.

Look for something with a low heel toe drop/offset (I'm at 4mm right now) so that your heel isn't forced to land before your midfoot. Racing flats are gonna be just a step up from vibrams, then you get into shoes like the Saucony Kinvara, which remove some durability from the heel (which doesn't really matter as you're landing on your forefoot) to reduce weight but still have padding.

Running shouldn't hurt anything other than your pride. If you're feeling pain, don't run. Don't be scared about going to your local shoe store and having them show you what's up. Happy trails.

I don't run often, but I hike a TON. 10+ mile hikes, 3-5 times a week, over moderate elevation changes. After three weeks at Yosemite in July a couple years ago, I've completely moved on from heavy hiking boots, to Inov8 trail shoes. Ultralight, 0-4mm drop. Best move I've ever made. Just did a week in the Canadian rockies, over HEAVY terrain, and rock scrambles. No more overheating, stronger feet, and I can go MUCH further distances.

> If you're barefoot/vibram running with proper form, you'll pretty much instantly feel all this discomfort of the impacts in your heel, knee, and back.

I don't understand. Do you mean with improper form?

+1 on the Kinvara. I'm a current college XC runner, and I've been running in the Kinvaras (many different versions) for 5 years now. I've found that the low weight makes a big difference, allowing you to run with a higher cadence and thus with shorter, lighter strides, reducing impact forces and generally improving form.

As a lifelong athlete the on-your-toes style of barefoot running is the best way to run. If you cannot run on your toes you are not built to run. There are rare heel-running sportspeople but running is not their competitive strength. Over long distances it is easy to fall back on heel-running out of laziness, because the impact is absorbed more by joints and less by tired muscles, but that is a failure of fitness and a sub-optimal style.

Barefoot vs shoes is more of a personal choice. A cushioned heel can permit bad style by reducing pain, whereas barefoot forces proper technique or else breaks your feet. However proper technique once you have it doesn't depend on footwear.

> As a lifelong athlete the on-your-toes style of barefoot running is the best way to run. If you cannot run on your toes you are not built to run.

Nonsense. You can go tell Meb Keflezghi, winner of both the Boston and New York marathon, that he's not built to run. He's a prime example of a heel striker [1], though slightly less prominent in his later years.

More generally, in [2], a study of elite level runners in the half marathon, found that at the 15km point the top 50 was comprised of 62% rear-foot strikers, 36% mid-foot, and 2.0% fore-foot strikers.

If a certain running style works for you, i.e. you've been running injury-free, don't try to change it. You are more likely to do harm than good.

[1] https://runblogger.com/2011/11/meb-keflezighis-running-from-...

[2] http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/abstract/2007/08000/foot_s...

> Meb Keflezghi, winner of both the Boston and New York marathon, that he's not built to run. He's a prime example of a heel striker [1], though slightly less prominent in his later years.

Trained hard and overcame the limitation for a time? I did say there are exceptions.

> More generally, in [2], a study of elite level runners in the half marathon, found that at the 15km point the top 50 was comprised of 62% rear-foot strikers, 36% mid-foot, and 2.0% fore-foot strikers.

Reflects that heel-strikers are more common.

From a quick search:

1,991 runners were classified by foot-strike pattern, revealing a heel-strike prevalence of 93.67% (n=1,865). A significant difference between foot-strike classification and performance was found using a Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.0001), with more elite performers being less likely to heel-strike.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801105/

> I did say there are exceptions.

You said: There are rare heel-running sportspeople but running is not their competitive strength.

Do you agree that Meb Keflezghi's competitive strength is running?

The study you link to mentions multiple studies that say that 75-80% of elites are heel-striking. Would you call that rare?

No, I think his competitive strength is probably mental fortitude, but that's just speculation.

We're splitting hairs now.

The numbers tilt steeply towards toe-striking at the competitive end, because toe-striking has a higher technical floor and ceiling.

But again, what you're saying here is purely anecdotal. Actually, it may not be, but I have absolutely no idea because the way you are presenting it is in a purely anecdotal way.

Is this not basic physics looking at pivot points? If 160+ pounds is landing on your heels, the shock of that must be absorbed entirely by your knees and hips. If the same weight lands on the the front of your feet, you have the added absorption offered by your toes, ankles, and achilles tendon. That's not exactly anecdotal.

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...

I don't know if your heel touching the ground first is the same thing as what you're describing. I usually run as a 'midfoot' but I sometimes let my heel touch the ground first. I don't drop my weight onto it, though. I just roll the foot forwards. 'Heel striking' doesn't mean running on your heels.

I agree with you that there is no proof that barefoot running is better for you, but the problem is there is no proof that cushioned shoes are better for you either...

I have been a minimalist/barefoot runner for 4 years and have run a 50 mile ultramarathon and am currently training for 100 mile ultramarathon. I am constantly asked how/why I do it and the best answer that I can come up with is because I like the way it feels. I feel light on my feet and strong. That being said I would only recommend someone to use minimalist shoes if they truely believes it will be better for them over the long run. When I transitioned it took me 4 years of have sore arches, achillies, and calf musles. Because of this inital pain most people use this as proof that it is bad for you. I spent a lot of time with rollers working out pain in my legs. My muscle and tendons have now become strong enough that I don't get pain. In the last three years I haven't once had a running injury and I average around 50 to 60 miles a week.

I view minimalist running as a long term benifit to me. I want to be able to run into my 60s and 70s. I have consciously made the gamble that minimalist running will allow me to do that. Time will tell if the gamble pays off or not.

All the people I know in their 60's 70's still running are doing like 2-5 miles per day maximum. Few ran marathons more than casually. All of them wear shoes. But all of them had to iterate a lot to find shoes that work for them.

Running two marathons per week strikes me as way beyond excessive, if the goal is just to be running later in life.

I agree.

Evidence out there seems to suggest that trainers are bad by overcushioning the feet or placing the body in a bad position, but...

For example, I'm sure our neolithic ancestors ran long distances because they had to. There's nothing implicit in this about whether it's good for us, and we don't know how many of them got eaten or died because they had bum knees!

our neolithic ancestors also ran on grass/ forest floor, not asphalt or concrete.

I run in cities. I love my trainers.

Well, it's definitely worse for us because even with an inch of padding, our knees still take a huge amount of force when striking that way, even if we don't notice it per strike. Heel strikes on locked knees are a bad way to run, period.