For the joy of debate, I've been wanting to jump into the shouting match about barefoot and minimal footwear running.The trouble is that it's not clear what the argument is about. For starters, although I know what "barefoot" means, the definition of "minimal footwear" is not so clear. Additionally, the proponents of barefoot running are a bit slippery as to what are the exact benefits of going unshod. Lower injury rates? Improved performance? Whiter teeth and fresher breath?
But I do have a "minimal footwear" story.
In May 1979 Florida State hosted the Metro Conference Track and Field Championships. I was a freshman at FSU, competing in the 10,000 meters, just short of 25 times around the track. Memphis was also in the Metro and had recruited several British distance runners whose notions of track were closer to roller derby than ours were.
During the eighth lap of the 10,000 I was leading the race, closely followed by Memphis' Steve Anders. Near the end of the second turn, I wandered more than 10 inches from the curb and Anders thought he could pass me on the inside. He couldn't. There was contact. Anders stumbled onto the infield. One of my shoes came off.
I had the bizarre notion that on the next lap or so I could grab the shoe and shove it back on, but it was already gone the next time around. Unevenly covered feet didn't feel right, so after a few laps I paused long enough to tear off the other shoe. The race had become a personal experiment in minimal footwear.
I can't recommend running on a track in socks. Your toes keep curling up, trying to get a grip on the surface. Also, running tracks are designed with a rough surface which gives athletes good traction but is very abrasive.
For two miles the socks protected my feet fairly well. After that the track wore through the soles of the socks and spent the last mile of the race wearing through the soles of my feet. Someone described my feet as "bloody pulp," and another description included the word "shredded." They couldn't have been that bad, though, because I raced the 5,000 meters the next day.
I did win the 10,000 and ran 30:05.1, at the time my best for the distance. Before the minimal footwear advocates claim this as a victory, though, I have to mention it was only my second 10,000 on the track. And the following month I ran 29:37.6, this time wearing shoes the entire way.
So I hesitate to use my experience for either side of the great footwear debate. I did learn that whatever you decide to wear (or not wear) on your feet, don't change in the middle of a race. Results will be less than optimal.
Links:
- Original appearance of this story
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20100717/SPORTS/7170328/
I had a fun PR on a 5k cross country course after some really thick mud sucked my left shoe off. I lost my shoe around mile 1 and didn't try to take the other shoe off. I learned really fast to watch out for pine cones and tree roots.
ReplyDeleteSome other kid's parent grabbed my spikes and gave them back to me after the race was over. I think my time was in the 17:20 range for that race.
Ouch! Cross-country wouldn't be my choice of venue to do an impromptu barefoot run. I've lost a shoe during the Daytona Beach Run, but that wasn't even uncomfortable. The shoe wasn't there when I went back, though. I may still have a mismatched Oregon Waffle Racer somewhere.
ReplyDeleteMud is really bad for eating shoes. The last time I ran an especially muddy cross-country race I used athletic tape to strap my shoes on. My feet were sore later, but it worked. About a dozen people lost shoes that day, but I wasn't one of them.