Great article in today’s Times about barefoot running. You may have heard about this before, not least because it is one of the fashionable fitness trends at the moment.

(In fact, I predicted this over a year ago in the Daily Express, so I am glad people are catching up with me).

Running barefoot remains a controversial topic, but actually, if you look closer, it is not that controversial at all.

The whole barefoot running movement is based on the principle that as human beings we are designed to run with minimal equipment on our feet, and that our reliance on shoes has actually retarded our ability to run, causing more injuries.

Let me explain the concept.

When you run in shoes (running or other) you tend to strike the floor with the heel first. This heels strike is followed by you rolling across and over your foot, before pushing off with your toes. Indeed, this is the movement that running shoes are designed to assist. Grab you shoes and look at the design – it doesn’t matter which brand, since they ll use the same principles.

Looks at the heel. There will be a softer bit of the heel, as compared to the rest of the sole. Some manufacturers out it at the bottom (e.g. Nike), and some put it higher up (e.g.. Asics). What this does is absorb the initial impact of the heel strike, and slow the foot movement down.

Next bit is the arch/midfoot area of the shoe. Most people have a grey bit of plastic in here which feels harder than the white sole. This is to provide support for your foot as it rolls over and through. The toe area tends not to have too much cushioning since here you need to be able to push off, so the thinner and harder the forefoot area the better.

Great.  For 30 years manufacturers have been refining this model, which is why technical running shoes cost about £90 these days.

However, take your shoes off and then run. Do you run heel to toe? No, because it hurts. You run on the midfoot. This being the case, then why do we run one way in shoes and another barefoot?

The barefoot and minimal support lobby claim that by running like this your are teaching your body to handle the forces generated through running in a natural way, whereas in shoes your body is being artificially assisted, meaning that the natural force dissipation is restricted, and thus you begin to get injuries as parts of the body are over stressed.

For runners who have spent years in heavily supported shoes it is hard to get their heads around not wearing shoes, but it does have merit. Indeed, if you look at shoes over the past 10 years the fashion to put large amounts of support in the designs has changed, and manufacturers now are all about allowing the foot to move naturally. Nike Free shoes are the best at this.

So what does this mean for the curious?

Well, a few years ago I decided to learn minimal support running. I was going through 3 pairs of expensive shoes a year and had a long term calf problem, so was looking for another way. I taught myself but took it slowly. In fact, for 6 weeks I did nothing but strengthening exercises – no running at all.

Then, I did 200m, 400m, 800m, slowly building up to my previous distances. It was not all plain sailing. Because I was teaching my body to move in a fundamentally different way I did get some aches and pains, but when I was finished i was able to run 6 miles in nothing but a pair of plimsoles.  And still can.

As for actually not wearing shoes, the whole “barefoot” angle is more about spiritual release and exercising your evolutionary right to run barefoot, than biomechanics, so I prefer a light shoe for basic protection. Puma H-Street (£20), Nike Free (£50 and good old plimsoles (£10) do the job well.

Just start slowly, and learn the method properly!

You can read the Times article here.