November 5, 2011
6,000 YEARS OF HUMAN HISTORY CAN'T BE WRONG:
The Once and Future Way to Run (CHRISTOPHER McDOUGALL, 11/06/11, NY Times Magazine)Back in the '60s, Americans "ran way more and way faster in the thinnest little shoes, and we never got hurt," Amby Burfoot, a longtime Runner's World editor and former Boston Marathon champion, said during a talk before the Lehigh Valley Half-Marathon I attended last year. "I never even remember talking about injuries back then," Burfoot said. "So you've got to wonder what's changed."At Camp Sankaty Head we used to have a "marathon" every summer--you ran the entire golf course. Tees, fairways and greens lent themselves naturally to running bare foot and, since my sneakers were high white Chuck Taylors, that's what I did (albeit at a glacial pace).
Bob Anderson knows at least one thing changed, because he watched it happen. As a high-school senior in 1966, he started Distance Running News, a twice-yearly magazine whose growth was so great that Anderson dropped out of college four years later to publish it full time as Runner's World. Around then, another fledgling operation called Blue Ribbon Sports was pioneering cushioned running shoes; it became Nike. Together, the magazine and its biggest advertiser rode the running boom -- until Anderson decided to see whether the shoes really worked.
"Some consumer advocate needed to test this stuff," Anderson told me. He hired Peter Cavanagh, of the Penn State University biomechanics lab, to stress-test new products mechanically. "We tore the shoes apart," Anderson says. He then graded shoes on a scale from zero to five stars and listed them from worst to first.
When a few of Nike's shoes didn't fare so well in the 1981 reviews, the company pulled its $1 million advertising contract with Runner's World. Nike already had started its own magazine, Running, which would publish shoe reviews and commission star writers like Ken Kesey and Hunter S. Thompson.
"Nike would never advertise with me again," Anderson says. "That hurt us bad." In 1985, Anderson sold Runner's World to Rodale, which, he says, promptly abolished his grading system. Today, every shoe in Runner's World is effectively "recommended" for one kind of runner or another. David Willey, the magazine's current editor, says that it only tests shoes that "are worth our while." After Nike closed its magazine, it took its advertising back to Runner's World. (Megan Saalfeld, a Nike spokeswoman, says she was unable to find someone to comment about this episode.)
"It's a grading system where you can only get an A," says Anderson, who went on to become the founder and chief executive of Ujena Swimwear.
Just as the shoe reviews were changing, so were the shoes: fear, the greatest of marketing tools, entered the game. Instead of being sold as performance accessories, running shoes were rebranded as safety items, like bike helmets and smoke alarms. Consumers were told they'd get hurt, perhaps for life, if they didn't buy the "right" shoes. It was an audacious move that flew in the face of several biological truths: humans had thrived as running animals for two million years without corrective shoes, and asphalt was no harder than the traditional hunting terrains of the African savanna.
In 1985, Benno Nigg, founder and currently co-director of the University of Calgary's Human Performance Lab, floated the notion that impact and rear-foot motion (called pronation) were dangerous. His work helped spur an arms race of experimental technology to counter those risks with plush heels and wedged shoes. Running magazines spread the new gospel. To this day, Runner's World tells beginners that their first workout should be opening their wallets: "Go to a specialty running store . . . you'll leave with a comfortable pair of shoes that will have you running pain- and injury-free."
Nigg now believes mistakes were made. "Initial results were often overinterpreted and were partly responsible for a few 'blunders' in sport-shoe construction," he said in a speech to the International Society of Biomechanics in 2005. The belief in the need for cushioning and pronation control, he told me, was, in retrospect, "completely wrong thinking." His stance was seconded in June 2010, when The British Journal of Sports Medicine reported that a study of 105 women enrolled in a 13-week half-marathon training program found that every single runner who was given motion-control shoes to control excess foot pronation was injured. "You don't need any protection at all except for cold and, like, gravel," Nigg now says.
Of course, the only way to know what shoes have done to runners would be to travel back to a time when no one ever wore them. So that's what one anthropologist has effectively done. In 2009, Daniel Lieberman, chairman of Harvard's human evolutionary biology department, located a school in Kenya where no one wore shoes. Lieberman noticed something unusual: while most runners in shoes come down hard on their heels, these barefoot Kenyans tended to land softly on the balls of their feet.
Back at the lab, Lieberman found that barefoot runners land with almost zero initial impact shock. Heel-strikers, by comparison, collide with the ground with a force equal to as much as three times their body weight. "Most people today think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts, but actually you can run barefoot on the world's hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain."
Posted by oj at November 5, 2011 9:58 AM
Tweet