Barefoot running VS shoes

The advancement of shoes: Chuck Taylor high tops. The Oregon Waffle. Adidas S.L. 72s and 76s (had all of them!). Air Jordan’s. Footwear made especially for tennis, volleyball, weightlifting, operating, cheerleading, wrestling, etc. Today the funky-looking toe shoes for instance the Adidas adiPURE Barefoot or Vibram five-fingers. Imelda Marcos is pleased.

Regarding the toe shoes – and especially the advancement of jogging shoes – we've, in a way, come back to where it started. The barefoot or virtually barefoot trend has taken us up to now: run shod (with shoes) or unshod (barefoot)?

Much debate and study goes on regarding pros and cons of shod versus barefoot. Let’s simply take a peek at a number of the analysis on the market, specially on problems of safety, running economy, working rate, and air usage (VO2).

A current study by Hanson, et al. stated that operating shod requires higher prices of oxygen usage than operating barefoot. Compared to running barefoot, they reported 2.0 percent higher VO2 for running shod on a treadmill. This difference was not statistically considerable on its own, which will be general consistent with the literature.

Only two of seven studies having in comparison barefoot and shod running on treadmills have found a statistically factor in VO2. A genuine aspect of the Hanson research was additionally they compared shod and barefoot working over-ground. VO2 for shod running was 5.7 per cent greater than barefoot running. 5.7 per cent is the better difference in VO2 ever reported for barefoot versus shod running.

• Ground contact time (in seconds) during barefoot running had been significantly shorter than shod operating (0.245 vs. 0.255).
• Stride size (in meters) ended up being somewhat reduced when barefoot running (2.19 vs. 2.34).
• Stride frequency (in strides/minute) was significantly higher while barefoot (91.2 vs. 86.0). For that reason, step time ended up being substantially lower than shod.

See also:

• scottspray.com