“Barefoot-style” shoes are now a $1.7 billion industry. But simply putting something different on your feet doesn’t make you a gliding Tarahumara. The “one best way” isn’t about footwear. It’s about form. Learn to run gently, and you can wear anything. Fail to do so, and no shoe -- or lack of shoe -- will make a difference.
That’s what Peter Larson discovered when he reviewed his footage after the New York City Barefoot Run. “It amazed me how many people in FiveFingers were still landing on their heels,” he says. They wanted to land lightly on their forefeet, or they wouldn’t be in FiveFingers, but there was a disconnect between their intentions and their actual movements. “Once we develop motor patterns, they’re very difficult to unlearn,” Larson explains. “Especially if you’re not sure what it’s supposed to feel like.”
So how can runners relearn how to run properly? According to McDougall, something called the "100-Up Exercise" -- invented in 1874 by W.S. George -- could be the key. To practice, start by setting 2 targets on the ground about 8 inches apart.
The 100-Up consists of two parts. For the “Minor,” you stand with both feet on the targets and your arms cocked in running position. “Now raise one knee to the height of the hip,” George writes, “bring the foot back and down again to its original position, touching the line lightly with the ball of the foot, and repeat with the other leg.”
That’s all there is to it. But it’s not so easy to hit your marks 100 times in a row while maintaining balance and proper knee height. Once you can, it’s on to the Major: “The body must be balanced on the ball of the foot, the heels being clear of the ground and the head and body being tilted very slightly forward.... Now, spring from the toe, bringing the knee to the level of the hip.... Repeat with the other leg and continue raising and lowering the legs alternately. This action is exactly that of running.”
Interesting stuff. Check out the Times' video of the 100-Up here:
M and I learned a ton from Clifton Harski at the one-day MovNat Fundamentals workshop in Palo Alto today. It was held at a park -- complete with kids' playground -- just a couple of miles from our house.
Among other things, I learned:
To be more mindful and aware of my body and environment;
To be more precise and efficient in my movements;
How to climb poles and traverse horizontal bars by swinging hand-over-hand;
How to pull myself up and over a bar (in this case, the top of a playground swing set);
That with the right technique, it's pretty easy to throw a guy onto your shoulders and carry him around while keeping an arm free so you can shoot an imaginary machine gun at people; and
Most importantly, that accidentally stepping on a bee while walking barefoot in the grass can have painful consequences.
More on my MovNat experience shortly, but I really need to go conk out right now.
THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN SENT BY THE PENTAGON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER ON BEHALF OF DA WASHINGTON DC//DAPE-HRI//
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO POLICY TO PUBLISH ALARACT MODIFYING WEAR OF IMPROVED PHYSICAL FITNESS UNIFORM (IPFU)
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO MODIFY THE EXISTING WEAR POLICY FOR THE (IPFU).
THERE ARE A VARIETY OF MINIMALIST RUNNING SHOES AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE AND WEAR. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, ONLY THOSE SHOES THAT ACCOMMODATE ALL FIVE TOES IN ONE COMPARTMENT ARE AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR. THOSE SHOES THAT FEATURE FIVE SEPARATE, INDIVIDUAL COMPARTMENTS FOR THE TOES, DETRACT FROM A PROFESSIONAL MILITARY IMAGE AND ARE PROHIBITED FOR WEAR WITH THE IPFU OR WHEN CONDUCTING PHYSICAL TRAINING IN MILITARY FORMATION.
Interesting. Sounds like the Army thinks that splay-toed footwear is so ugly that it can't be worn even for PT.
Okay -- I'll admit that certain models of Vibram FiveFingers are ridiculously garish, and I can see why the Army (which has a pretty tight dress code as it is) would barf all over have an issue with soldiers who look like they dipped their feet in fluorescent paint.
Remember the whole Art De Vany / Dan Lieberman dustup over whether humans are -- from the standpoint of evolutionary biology -- "born to run"?
The (frankly crappy) Time Magazine article about Paleo stirred up the pot by pointing out that De Vany (like many other Paleo luminaries) believes that "no caveman ever jogged for miles while pursuing dinner or being chased by a predator." Rather, humans are best suited for "short bursts of cardiovascular exertion that may also include hauling a heavy weight, as you might after a successful hunt."
But Lieberman and his fellow barefoot running advocates (Christopher McDougall included) take the opposite view: Humans, they say, have a unique knack for endurance running because our genetic ancestors engaged in long-range persistence hunting.
We can run all day, the theory goes, because there was once a caloric advantage to it. Our two human legs, packed as they are with long slow-twitch muscle fibers, make us better runners over long distances than most quadrupeds. And our three million sweat glands give us the ability to cool our bodies with perspiration. An antelope, by contrast, sprints -- for up to 15 minutes -- while wearing a fur coat and relies on respiration (panting) to release the heat that builds up with exertion. Add to the mix our ability to organize and strategize and, well, you can see how persistence hunting might actually work.
By the end of their attempt at persistence hunting, the marathoners had each covered 20 miles -- not quite a marathon, but close. Did they succeed in bagging the antelope? Read the article and see for yourself.
Regardless of the results of this test, my take is that John Durant is right: To a certain extent, both camps are right. Yes, humans evolved to be capable of covering long distances -- but the optimal way to improve your overall fitness is through intermittent sprinting and lifting heavy stuff. After all, "high-intensity training and strength training can improve performance in endurance activities, but the reverse doesn't hold. You can get better at marathons by doing CrossFit, but you can't get better at CrossFit by running marathons."
The fit is perfect, and they're incredibly light and comfortable. They feel like socks. It's not a zero-drop shoe -- there's a 4 mm heel-to-toe drop -- but it's barely noticeable. And on the plus side, the slightly-more substantial heel feels more stable than that of the Merrell Trail Glove, so the Minimus should be perfect for WODs that combine O-lifting with running. (Both models, by the way, feature Vibram soles.)
Check out Birthday Shoes' detailed review of the NB Minimus Trail shoes here.
Is it weird that I want to wear my new shoes to bed?
In a way, Christopher McDougall is responsible for sparking my interest in evolutionary fitness and Paleo nutrition. Even though his focus is on barefoot running, McDougall's book, "Born to Run," presented a compelling argument that applies equally to running and eating:
If hunter-gatherers (both ancient and modern) can run/eat/live more healthfully than their "civilized" counterparts who heel-strike in cushioned running shoes and fatten up on super-refined low-fat junk, why the hell do we think that these modern conveniences are so great for us?
It's a little disheartening, then, to see that there's some internecine warfare a-brewin' between the barefoot endurance running camp and the disciples of Art De Vany's "less is more" approach. The former say that humans are built to run long distances; the latter say that endurance running is a recipe for disaster. But I see more similarities than differences: Both espouse a philosophy of going back to evolutionary basics, and eschewing the crutches of Western civilization that turn out to be more harmful than helpful. John Durant has a nice write-up that tries to reconcile the two viewpoints, but for me, it boils down to this:
If you're someone who loves endurance running, go for it (provided you're not in footwear with a big-ass cushioned heel). But while humans may be "born to run," I'm not planning to go on any super-long runs because: (1) I'm lucky enough to have access to grassfed meat and wild game without having to engage in persistence hunting, (2) I get bored easily, and (3) endurance running ain't necessary -- or even optimal -- for fitness. Analogy: Just 'cause the Masai can thrive on milk and blood doesn't mean I need to get in touch with my inner vampire to eat healthfully. Just as with Paleo nutrition, the way we run should be based on "a logical framework applied to modern humans -- not a historical reenactment."
Jones says Shanghai is a surprisingly easy place to go barefoot, having less gravel than some Western cities, as well as an open-mindedness to barefooters, which perhaps has roots in traditional Chinese medicine.
"The idea in Chinese medical theory is connected to reflexology, which is that there are certain pressure points in the bottom of the foot, which if you press them or stimulate them, they'll help to restore balance in the rest of the body," he explains.
There are even some parks in the city that have barefoot walking tracks, designed with reflexology in mind.
Author A.J. Jacobs has written books about self-experimentation before (notably, he lived in strict accordance with Biblical rules for a year), but he's now tackling a project to become "The Healthiest Person Alive." He's consulting with numerous health "experts" and is trying all sorts of different diets and fitness plans.
But from the video below, it looks like he's following a lot of wrong-headed advice. I have a feeling that "The Healthiest Person Alive" isn't someone who's using a treadmill desk and endlessly chewing on a a plate of raw food. And while Jacobs talks about having a single meal (of one blueberry and one walnut) with a bunch of extreme caloric restriction dieters, let's not confuse "healthiest" and "longest-lived." In my book, being miserable and on the verge of starvation doesn't make for good health.
Still, Jacobs is trying out barefoot running. Add some kettlebells and a Paleo-esque diet, and he's good to go. (And I'd actually buy that book.)
MovNat draws from some familiar sources -- CrossFit, low-carb diets, barefoot running, martial arts, mud wrestling, Quest for Fire, etc. -- but Le Corre's program occupies a space all its own. If anything, MovNat falls within the concept of "evolutionary fitness," an increasingly popular trend embraced by a loosely organized but fast-growing global community of health enthusiasts, medical professionals, and athletes. The movement is often lumped under the "paleo" rubric, but it's more than just a prehistoric way to eat and exercise.
This time, before leaving California, I'd arranged to drop into a local CrossFit affiliate. The island has several CrossFit gyms, and the one closest to where we're staying is one of the newest; it's not yet fully stocked with equipment, and most members are brand-new to CrossFit (even more so than me). But the owner/coach is open and friendly, and the programming seems solid.
Warm-Up:
Unlike my gym back home, where each of us gets loose and ready however we like, the warm-ups here are directed by the coach. Today, we were instructed to warm up with a little taste of Cindy: Instead of 20 minutes of pull-ups, push-ups and squats, though, we did just three rounds. In the sticky morning heat, it was enough to get me sweating.
It also reminded me of a CrossFit saying (that I've always disliked for its braggadocio, but with which I agree): "My warm-up is your workout."
And so, after the mini-Cindy, the workout began in earnest.
Strength Skills:
Barbell Hang Cleans (5 sets of 3)
Dumbbell Floor Presses (5 sets of 5 per side)
The hang cleans weren't difficult, but the floor presses were new to me -- at least in a CrossFit setting. (I'd been introduced to them before as part of my Turbulence Training routine from earlier in the year, but I often subbed in bench presses instead.) I like new things, so I had fun with them.
The best part: Practicing a compound motion requiring full-body neuromuscular coordination (hang cleans) and then throwing in some pure strength work (floor presses) for good measure.
Metcon:
CrossFit isn't CrossFit without a metcon, right?
For time:
10 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
9 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
8 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
7 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
6 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
5 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
4 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
3 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
2 overhead kettlebell swings
Run 100 meters
1 overhead kettlebell swing
Run 100 meters
I've done this one twice before. But it's one thing to do a crazy metcon in the pre-dawn chill of northern California. It's another thing entirely to do one in the mid-morning humidity of Maui. I still managed to fly through this one, finishing in 7:37 (7 seconds faster than my previous effort), but I'm pretty sure I've never before perspired that much in just seven-and-a-half minutes.
Apparently, the problem with barefoot marathoners isn't that they'll hurt their feet. It's that all marathoners -- regardless of footwear -- increase their risk of heart attack:
Medical directors at the Twin Cities, Boston and New York marathons said they have not seen any injuries more serious than a blister among the small number of runners who go barefoot, noting that they have more serious issues to worry about, like cardiac arrest.
(Mark Sisson recently wrote about this topic here.)
What? You need another reason not to run a marathon? Here one more: BLOODY NIPPLES.
I’m all about going barefoot as much as possible, but unless you’re Fred Flintstone, Zola Budd or a Hobbit, you can’t go shoeless all the time.
That’s fine by me. It’s easy for me to decide what to put on my feet. I’m no Imelda Marcos, Carrie Bradshaw or Fat Joe, so I don’t have the daily dilemma of having to pick from a million shoes in my closet. As long as I have footwear that's comfortable, appropriate for the activity, and not terrible for my feet, I’m pretty much good to go.
So: Every morning, I slip on a pair of Terra Plana Barefoot shoes before heading to the office, and as soon as I’m home, I kick off my shoes and pad around in my bare feet.
You’re probably sick of the lavish praise I’ve heaped on Vibram FiveFingers, but I love ‘em to death. Over the past year or so, I’ve acquired a pair of Sprints, two pairs of KSOs, and a pair of Bikilas. (And judging by the fact that M has even more pairs of FiveFingers, she’s even crazier about them than I am.)
When I did P90X and Insanity in my garage, I got accustomed to working out without any shoes on. Now that most of my workouts are done at my CrossFit box, I want something on my feet -- but something that's as close to being barefoot as possible.
Of all my FiveFingers, my black KSOs are the least gaudy, so they're the ones I wear at the gym when my workout primarily involves running, jumping, balance or deadlifts. You know why I run in them, and you can probably guess why I wear them when attempting box jumps, pistols and single-leg deadlifts. But why wear FiveFingers when deadlifting? Because they’re stable and allow for virtually no compression (and therefore little to any absorption of force by a thick, cushioned sole). Plus, the closer your feet are to the floor, the less distance you’ll have to hoist the barbell up. Barefoot’s the best for deadlifts, but FiveFingers are a close second. (I'm thinking about trying a pair of Terra Plana's EVO minimalist running shoes, too.)
But for just about every other Olympic lift (e.g., snatches, cleans, jerks, front squats, etc.), I’ll don a pair of weightlifting shoes. Why buy weightlifting shoes instead of just pulling on a pair of cross-trainers or running shoes? Starting Strength's Lon Kilgore and Mark Rippetoe explain:
Proper footwear in the gym is important, especially if you are lifting free weights. When we lift weights we want two things to happen: (1) all the force our body produces under the bar should contribute to moving the weight and (2) the weight needs to be controlled in a safe manner. If we lift in a running shoe, it's akin to trying to lift while standing on a giant marshmallow. The soles of the running shoes, the marshmallow, will absorb and dissipate a large amount of the force generated against the floor that should be directed towards moving the weight... You can't lift as much weight in the wrong shoes.
The second issue is control of the weight -- and your body -- while standing on an unstable surface. A compressible medium placed between the feet and the ground will behave inconsistently enough during each rep to alter the pattern of force transmission every time. This means that the subtle points of consistent good technique on any standing exercise are impossible to control. And there is an increased chance for a balance or stability loss-induced injury while lifting heavy weights, since perfect balance cannot be assured on an imperfect surface.
For you visual learners, here's a video that shows the differences between O-lifting with running shoes and weightlifting shoes:
I bought a pair of Adidas Ironworks 3s, and love the solid THUNK! that the solid wooden heels make against the floor when I properly execute a clean. It’s gotten to the point that I can tell whether my technique is off by just listening to the sound of my shoes striking the floor.
Rogue, for its part, carries a pair of fine-looking Do Wins that almost resemble casual sneakers (except for the wooden sole, I guess).
And, of course, if you like the bowling-shoe look and insist on wearing ruby-red footwear, you can always pick up a pair of these babies:
So when do I bust out my all-black, sinister-as-hell Chuck Taylors? Any time we do a metcon that combines running or jumping with O-lifting. My Chucks hit a sweet spot: They feature a flat, close-to-solid heel that allows me to powerfully land and plant my feet for all kinds of explosive lifts, yet the soles are also thin enough that I can run in them comfortably without royally messing up my gait. In my Chucks, I can do just about anything that a CrossFit WOD calls for: plyo box jumps, erg rowing, thrusters, cleans, kettlebell swings, you name it. Besides, I’ve been wearing Chuck Taylors since I was a kid, and I don’t think I'll ever give ‘em up.
Best of all? They’re cheap, and you can wear ‘em around town even when you’re not exercising like a demon. So if you’re on a tight budget but need a pair of good, multi-purpose shoes, Chucks are a fine way to go.
But whatever you do, stop working out in running shoes. ("But what if I'm training like crazy for a marathon or an ultra?" you ask. My response: cut it out.)
Last year at about this time, I got it in my head that I should run a marathon. The idea popped up suddenly, the plan fully-formed: I’d slowly accumulate more and more mileage in my Vibram FiveFingers, building a base of endurance รก la Arthur Lydiard – and then ramp up using a tried-and-true training program like Hal Higdon’s. I could shoot for the San Francisco Marathon, or maybe enter the lottery for the New York City Marathon. My head quickly filled with grand plans.
And then, I remembered: I find long-distance running boring as hell. (I'm not the only one, right?) And I hate the interminable post-run recovery period.
I have nothing against runners. I admire their perseverance, sacrifice and drive. And personally, I still enjoy running short-to-moderate distances. I'll still pull on my FiveFingers and log a few miles every now and then, when I feel like it. But long-distance training takes a toll on my body that just ain’t worth the hassle. And frankly, with CrossFit workouts scheduled every other day, I’m not sure my aging legs could take the extra pounding. And so, after chucking the marathon goal out the window, I stopped doing my occasional long mid-afternoon runs. I didn't see the point.
Nonetheless, every once in a while, a devil perches on my shoulder, enticing me with whispers about the benefits of marathon training. Wouldn't it be an awesome accomplishment to run 26.2 miles? Don't you want a nice, shiny finisher's medal? Aren't pre-race spaghetti dinners yummy? Don't you miss slurping down Gu? And wouldn't it be fantastic to have saliva smeared all over your face?
Thankfully, I now have more than enough ammo to shoot that little fucker down. Namely:
Even if I don't get chubby from running, I'd still rather work on building power and speed through intense (but brief) sprinting sessions. It's hard to believe, but I actually have better things to do with my time than to run for hours. And to be honest, I'd rather have the body composition of the sprinter on the right than the marathoner on the left:
The good folks at Re-Nest want you to know that there are lots of advantages to having a home gym that’s “both handsome and healthful,” such as: “[y]ou can watch television to make the time pass quickly during your 20-40 minute cardio” and “you are comfortable and completely at ease.”
YES! FINALLY! That’s EXACTLY what I want when I'm exercising: Complete comfort and ease! While watching TV to kill time!
Here’s Re-Nest’s recommended shopping list for starting your very own super-chill home gym on a budget:
That bench makes me want to put on some Coldplay and curl up in a Snuggie with a soothing cup of fucking chai latte. It does not, however, make me want to work out. I daresay that if you plan on using an upholstered ottoman in place of an exercise bench, you’re pretty much committing to either NOT sweating or investing in a Costco-sized pallet of Scotchgard.
Don't get me wrong. I’m not saying you have to accumulate a crapload of equipment to outfit your home gym. But if you have $400 burning a hole in your pocket, and you want to buy some stuff to enable you to ACTUALLY WORK OUT, consider these options instead:
A pull-up bar. This time, let’s splurge on something nicer – let’s go for the StudBar. $139.45
Olympic rings – prices on Amazon range from $39.95 (for rings by XFit Equipment) to $84.24 (for EXF Rings – I have a pair and love 'em)
A kettlebell. Kettlebell King -- the cheapest KB seller I could find online -- sells them for about a buck per pound. For our purposes, let's start with a 35-pound kettlebell. $34.65
"?
just published 
