Track and Field Toolbox

Fatigue in Distance Runners

by Leave a Comment

Training a distance runner properly requires and thorough understanding muscle physiology. We must train two different energy systems and understand how they work together to power our bodies so that we can design the most effective workouts.  If your background is not is physiology or exercise science, you might want to turn to some experts that can help you become a little more scientific in your training.

In the first of two clips below renowned distance coach Scott Christensen discusses issues related to fatigue in distance runners. Coach Christensen states that training to delay fatigue will improve performance .  He believes that all other factors being somewhat equal, fatigue will determine winners and losers and finally the athletes with the greatest ability to manage fatigue are the ones setting all of the records.

In the second clip he discusses proper rest intervals during workouts and how to adjust them as the season progresses. Generally speaking he believes they should be shorter early in the season and longer as the season progresses. Exactly the opposite of what one might think.

For those of you unfamiliar with Coach Christensen his high school teams have been ranked in the national top 10 eight times.  He has coached 13 Minnesota State Championship-winning teams and 27 individual Minnesota State Champions.  Coach Christensen has also spent 14-years as a USATF Level II endurance lead instructor and currently serves as lead endurance instructor for the USTFCCCA Coaching Academy.

He has produced several products that are great items to add to your coaching toolbox. The clips below are from his program  ADVANCED TOPICS SYMPOSIUM IN CROSS COUNTRY.  In this program he covers the following topics: (These are just a few. In all it consists of 6 hours of training)

 

 

  1. Scientific theory of training
  2. Role of fatigue in performance
  3. Cross Country training theory
  4. Influence of Aerobic Training
  5. Influence of Anaerobic Training
  6. Training Schedules for 5K

 

The YouTube videos below have audio, so please make sure that your sound is turned on and that you  have access to the site. Please note that some schools block access to YouTube.

 

 

 

 

For more information about Scott Christensen’s ADVANCED TOPICS SYMPOSIUM IN CROSS COUNTRY click on the link here or on the image. This and other great coaching resources may be found at Complete Track and Field

 

 


Stabilization Exercises for Distance Runners

by Leave a Comment

When planning the training  for distance runners there are a lot of factors to take into consideration.  Whether it is balancing tempo runs with speed workouts, or working on their form and posture, as a coach you are always trying to gain an edge. How can we train our runners so that we cut time, reduce injury and keep them motivated.

One often overlooked area that can help distance runners is improving their balance. Running is an activity that demands that the athlete be on one foot while performing. Therefore it is critical that they have the necessary strength and balance needed to stabilize their foot on each strike. In reality a runner requires just fractions of seconds to stabilize on each foot strike. If you consider the thousands of foot strikes required in training and racing, improvement in this area will not only reduce injury but also have effect on their performance.

In the video clip below Ryan Warrenburg, strength coach at Zap Fitness Team USA Training Center, demonstrates some very simple exercises that he incorporates into each of his workouts with his distance runners. These are simple exercises that can be completed easily outside of the weight room.

These exercises are one example of the type of strength and conditioning drills that he uses with his distance runners. For a more information about training distance runners you check his dvd. The dvd also includes instruction from elite distance coach Pete Rea. Coach Rea shares the secrets behind his training methods, the different types of workouts you can use within a single training session, and discusses how you can implement them with the individual runner. The bulk of his training ideologies are based on Arthur Lydiard’s training theories. For more information about that dvd click the link Zap Fitness: Proven Training Methods for Distance Running Success

I have also included a second clip. I this clip Coach Rea takes you through two different workouts he is using 10 days prior to competition

The YouTube video have audio, so please make sure that your sound is turn on and that you have access to the site. Please note that some schools block access to YouTube.

 


Overtraining: Runners Beware

by Leave a Comment

Overtraining syndrome can derail athletes’ performance goals and put their physical and mental health in jeopardy. Fortunately, it’s easy to avoid when training programs focus on gradual adaptation and common-sense monitoring strategies.

By Dr. Terry Favero

Terry Favero, PhD, is Professor of Biology and Conditioning Coordinator for the women’s soccer team at the University of Portland. He has also worked with the U.S. Olympic Development Program, and can be reached at: favero@up.edu.

Visit any weightroom or locker room around the country, and you’re likely to find a slogan on the wall entreating athletes to give all they have and then some: “Pain is weakness leaving the body.” “To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.” “Whatever it takes.” The words vary, but the message is the same: Work hard. Every day.

Training hard is a prerequisite for success, but it also presents a fine line. Excessive hard training may lead to overtraining, making workouts counterproductive and sometimes even dangerous. Overtraining carries a high price–often a serious injury and the loss of all or part of a competitive season.

Athletes are fiercely competitive by nature, and the best ones want to do whatever they can to gain an edge. But they need your help to recognize the boundary between pushing themselves to the next level and pushing themselves too far. The good news is that access to advanced monitoring techniques, solid research, and time-tested workout strategies provides athletes and coaches today with more information about optimal training levels than ever before.

OVERTRAINING DEFINED
Put simply, overtraining is the result of an imbalance in the training-to-recovery ratio–too much training and competing and too little recovery and regeneration. The difficulty is deciding just what constitutes “too much” and “too little.”

Athletes enhance performance by overloading the body and then allowing it to recover. This stimulus-recovery process is called adaptation, and it’s a characteristic shared by all living organisms. In developing athletes, small to moderate training loads can lead to large improvements in performance if they’re implemented properly.

But while a little is good, more is not necessarily better. The adaptation process has built-in limits that govern both how quickly an athlete can adapt and their maximum capacity to endure intense training. These limitations function as safety mechanisms to protect the body from irreversible damage.

Muscle fatigue, for example, is a protective mechanism that prevents permanent damage to muscle tissue. While localized muscle fatigue protects individual muscles and muscle groups, overtraining syndrome is the body’s way of protecting itself as a whole from multi-organ damage or long-lasting injury.

Overtraining syndrome is a complex and not completely understood set of neuroendocrine changes that dampen both the desire to exercise and the ability to produce maximal force, thus resulting in decreased performance. Train too long and too hard, and the body’s defenses kick in to draw the line.

The American College of Sports Medicine defines overtraining syndrome as part of a continuum that begins with overload training, a process of intense physical work with appropriate recovery leading to normal adaptation. This is healthy and can result in greater work capacity, muscle growth, and other benefits that both athletes and coaches strive for.

The next stage on the continuum is overreaching, which occurs when the intensity of training begins to overstress the body in minor ways, but typically causing nothing more than soreness and some degree of decreased performance. Overreaching is an accepted part of many preseason training camps, such as two-a-day workouts for football programs.

Overtraining syndrome is at the severe end of the continuum, resulting from excessive high-intensity training or rapid increases in training intensity or volume that result in chronic underperformance in practice and competition. The signs of overtraining syndrome are difficult to detect because there’s no definitive boundary between overreaching and overtraining–we expect fatigue and soreness with overreaching, and accept those responses as part of certain phases of the development process.

The difference is a matter of degrees. Overreaching leads to temporary, peripheral markers such as muscle soreness, joint stiffness, and short-term performance and motivational declines. One important distinction is that these effects can be reversed fairly quickly if an athlete follows a sound recovery program and reduces training.

Overtraining, on the other hand, results in a more general, prolonged fatigue that an athlete may describe as feelings of staleness or burnout. The acute physical symptoms are more pronounced as well, and may include a change in resting heart rate (increase or decrease), higher than normal heart rate during moderate workouts, decreased maximum heart rate, and decreased maximal lactate levels. Other common symptoms are disturbed sleep patterns, mood changes, reduced appetite, and difficulty concentrating on mental tasks.

Another reason overtraining syndrome is difficult to identify is that it’s essentially a moving target. As a normal training cycle progresses, athletes expect to be able to work harder and for longer. Even if it were possible to draw a line between the less serious overreaching and the more serious overtraining syndrome, the line would shift as training capacity improves.

Naturally, most coaches and athletes notice performance-related symptoms first, and may overlook the psychological clues–reduced concentration, anxiety, apathy toward training, irritability–that often precede performance deficits. But if the non-physical signs of overtraining syndrome are caught and intervention begins early, athletes can avoid the long-term effects and put themselves back on track for healthy training and adaptation.

CATCHING IT
Athletes in both team and individual sports are likely to experience an overreached state as part of their training, especially in the early stages of the season or training year. Research suggests that athletes in team sports are more likely to stop at overreaching, while individual endurance athletes are most susceptible to progressing past that level to overtraining.

But anyone, in any setting, who works too hard without proper guidance and attention to recovery can fall victim to overtraining syndrome. Following the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, one study indicated that 28 percent of the athletes considered themselves to be overtrained. More recent research showed that almost 50 percent of youth athletes seeking medical care were diagnosed with an overuse injury rather than an acute one, indicating that many of them suffered from overtraining to some extent.

Very few reliable tools are available to detect overtraining. While x-rays and blood tests can look for specific markers of other injuries or illnesses, overtraining typically does not produce definitive diagnostic values. For example, studies involving overtrained athletes show that they may measure higher than normal, lower than normal, or in the normal range for key performance-related hormone levels such as testosterone and cortisol. And physical signs are often not visible until an actual injury has occurred.

So how do you identify athletes who may be risking their health and performance through overtraining? Performance assessments such as maximum strength, endurance, and work capacity tests can be helpful in catching performance declines, particularly in sports like track and field that emphasize concrete numerical performance. With this method, it’s essential to first develop a baseline for each athlete and perform the tests on a regular basis to track progress. But this method is imperfect–many factors can lead to temporary performance declines, and the testing itself is an added stressor that may contribute to overtraining.

Localized soreness and fatigue are also important signs, particularly if they linger longer than normal. Some degree of soreness and fatigue are a natural part of adaptation, but if those symptoms do not normalize within 48 to 72 hours after an intense workout, practice, or competition, the body’s recovery mechanisms are clearly being overtaxed.

Some of the most promising methods to catch overtraining at an early stage focus on psychological disturbances. Tests such as the Profile of Mood States (POMS), REST-Q Sport (Recovery-Stress Questionnaire), and the Daily Analysis of Life Demand in Athletes (DALDA) are popular among sports psychologists for assessing the prevailing moods, stress levels, and psychological profiles of athletes.

For example, the POMS provides a quick, simple way to measure transient active mood states. It asks individuals to rate themselves on a variety of feelings, such as friendly, bitter, trusting, lonely, cheerful, weary, sluggish, and energetic, using a scale that ranges from “not at all” to “extremely.”

Evaluation of the data is typically performed by a sports psychologist or other professional with experience using the survey instrument. By themselves, psychological tests like these aren’t enough to diagnose overtraining syndrome, but they may reveal trends that help assess an athlete’s risk level.

A multi-faceted testing and evaluation protocol is the best way to catch overtraining in its earliest stages. One of the best examples was created by two researchers, Jack Daniels, PhD, and Dick Brown, PhD, working with the well-known distance running group Athletics West. Following a slew of urine and blood tests that didn’t provide conclusive evidence of overtraining risk, they began to look for simple ways to assess all types of underlying physiological stress.

They asked their athletes to monitor morning resting heart rate, morning body weight, and number of hours slept per night, and compared the daily values to historical baselines for each individual. They theorized that a low morning heart rate (suggesting parasympathetic syndrome) or a high one (suggesting sympathetic stress) might indicate autonomic dysfunction, a hallmark of overtraining. Morning body weight would detect poor eating or hydration habits. Number of hours slept was a very basic way to get a glimpse of stress level and fatigue–too much sleep would suggest the body was yearning for more rest and recovery; too little sleep would reveal problems with anxiety, physical stress, or overall workload.

Daniels and Brown used the data to guide and adjust the athletes’ training programs. They created thresholds: If an athlete’s morning heart rate changed by 10 percent or more during the course of training, if their average sleep time changed by 10 percent, or if their weight fluctuated by three percent, that was interpreted as failure to recover adequately from hard workouts or races, or at least as a sign of a high stress level (whether directly related to training or not).

If one variable reached the threshold above or below the athlete’s baseline, training was monitored and/or reduced by 10 percent. If two variables raised red flags, training was cut by up to 50 percent. If all three variables were problematic, intense training was eliminated until the data returned to the baseline range.

PREVENTION & INTERVENTION
The best-case scenario isn’t to catch overtraining syndrome in its early stages, but to avoid it in the first place. Most instances of overtraining result from poorly conceived programs that can be corrected with forethought and attention to recovery needs.

Perhaps the most common mistake that leads to overtraining is a lack of preparation, or an imbalance between training and the demands of competition. Specifically, if a preseason program does not gradually increase intensity and performance demands, athletes won’t develop a sound training base before the start of their competitive season. They may “play their way” into game shape by mid-season, but the physical and mental stresses of pursuing optimal performance from an inadequate foundation will take their toll over time, increasing the risk for overtraining and most likely creating disappointing results late in the season.

Distance runners provide a clear illustration of this problem. If a runner takes the summer off from serious training and plans to compete in cross country competitions in the fall, he won’t be successful if he suddenly begins running long distances with no step-by-step, periodized plan to gradually increase his workload as his body adapts to the stresses of running. Slow, moderate increases in training volume and intensity are required for safe, optimal performance improvement.

Monotony is another factor that can lead to overtraining. While athletes need regular training schedules to organize their time and allow for progress, a training routine with no variety will reduce motivation and sometimes lead to incomplete or imbalanced physical development.

The risk of monotony is greatest in individual endurance athletes, such as runners, who often rely almost exclusively on their primary sport for training. But even teams in sports like football and basketball can develop a monotonous weightroom routine or practice drill schedule if coaches aren’t careful.

For athletes who play more than one sport, poor communication can lead to overtraining. If two demanding sport coaches or strength coaches don’t know what the other is doing and athletes are eager to impress both, they may push themselves too hard. These athletes must be encouraged to take greater ownership of their training regimen and provide feedback to both sets of coaches when they feel overworked. Often, an athlete can follow a hybrid strength and conditioning program that meets the training needs of both sports without creating overstress.

Interpersonal relationships are another source of stress that can’t be overlooked. One elite soccer player I have worked with fell into a severe state of overtraining due to an unworkable relationship with national team coaches. The coaches demanded a certain style of play, and this athlete’s skills and attributes didn’t fit well within their system. Rather than embrace her unique gifts, they continued asking her to fit their mold.

This created a lot of stress for her, and she reacted by pushing herself harder and harder in an attempt to please the coaches. The combination of mental and physical stress led her to overtraining and poor recovery habits, and she ended up leaving the sport entirely for more than a year before her motivation to train and compete returned.

A PRACTICAL APPROACH
To prevent scenarios like those described above, athletic trainers and coaches should focus on three basic strategies:

Plan to train, not strain. Planned periodization helps balance overload training with recovery and allows athletes to move safely through seasonal progressions. It’s unacceptable to set training loads arbitrarily. I’ve heard of coaches prescribing training at or beyond athletes’ capacity, then reducing the workload to more manageable levels once chronic fatigue and soreness set in. While it is easier to devise overly demanding programs, a more conservative approach will lead to consistent performance gains and reduce athletes’ injury risk.

For most developing athletes and teams, a good guideline for periodization is the three-week rule. Following a three-week overload cycle, athletes get a training break by changing some aspect of their workout dynamics, such as reducing total training volume to allow for recovery or modifying the intensity, frequency, venue, or type of work.

After three weeks of hard training, most athletes need a physiological and mental break. This can be flexibly implemented across an entire week by cutting workload by 25 percent each day, or by taking two days off during the week. And it’s important to note that the three-week figure is just a guideline–depending on training experience, age, and sport, some athletes do better with longer or shorter intervals. Often, the best guides when setting interval lengths are athletes’ own feedback about their training and the progress they make in performance.

Coaches should include fun in their planning, such as competitive games and creative activities. Preventing overtraining means implementing changes and breaks in a program, even when they don’t seem necessary. Early-season breaks, before the athletes feel that time off is truly needed, will pay off later in the season.

Yearly planning must also account for non-training stressors, such as travel and academic demands. Lighter workouts and built-in time off around long road trips, mid-terms, and final exams can do wonders for athletes’ overall health and performance.

Monitor progress and problems. Coaches should be on the lookout for physical and psychological symptoms of overtraining at all stages of the training process. Seeing one individual sign might be just a temporary “rut” or anomaly, but a pattern of multiple symptoms is cause for concern.

Endurance sport athletes and their coaches often keep extensive records of training times, distances, and recovery, but this is far less common in team sports. Keeping logbooks that document dietary intake, morning body weight, sleep quantity and quality, resting heart rate, physical and emotional well-being, and workout quality can provide valuable information for assessing periods of difficult training, preventing overtraining, and catching problems in their early stages.

Formal performance testing adds stress and takes considerable effort to implement, so other alternatives can be explored as well. With my college soccer players, I don’t conduct structured tests such as two-mile runs or fitness tests to exhaustion. Instead, I employ a variety of “signature” workouts throughout the season and monitor heart rate recovery following certain activities and stages to assess training response and fatigue.

For example, one of my signature workouts consists of three sets of four 300-meter runs. The athletes run at 75 to 80 percent of max effort with 30 seconds of active rest between each run. I measure heart rates after each set, and expect them to be at around 180 bpm. A two to three minute jog typically lowers the heart rate to around 135 bpm, which is the level of recovery necessary to begin the next set. If an athlete’s heart rate isn’t close to the target of 180 bpm following activity or 135 bpm after active rest, I adjust her work rate or recovery time between sets. As the season progresses, I expect everyone’s recovery time to decrease.

I also regularly assess the athletes’ perception of their workouts. I ask them to rate the difficulty using a one-to-10 scale, with one being “extremely easy” and 10 being “at my limit.” When individual and team workouts don’t match my expectations, I meet with the athletes and sport coaches to deconstruct the results and talk about possible explanations, including training fatigue, travel, school influences, team chemistry, and other factors. These discussions help the athletes connect performance with training quality and non-athletic stressors, and give them a greater sense of control over their training.

Communicate effectively. The best coaches I know are not only experts at planning training sessions, they’re also great at sharing their knowledge and listening to feedback. They embrace the power of their position and use it to frame positive, constructive messages. Inexperienced coaches may try to coax greater efforts from their athletes without asking for input on how the athletes are feeling or explaining a justification for everything they do. This often leads to chronic fatigue and overtraining in the long run.

Effective coaches get to know their athletes on a physical, emotional, social, and sometimes even spiritual level. This facilitates one-on-one communication and builds trust. If one of these coaches is concerned about an athlete’s training level, they’re comfortable asking the athlete about it directly. And the athlete, likewise, knows they can be honest about how they feel and how they’re handling the training and other demands in their life.

The more a coach is tuned in to athletes’ feedback, the easier it is to tailor a training program that gets results and protects well-being. Great coaches are also able to interpret non-verbal messages from athletes who may have trouble articulating the way they feel. This skill only comes through familiarity and experience.

Overtraining syndrome is easy to prevent when coaches use sound training principles to plan daily, weekly, and seasonal workouts, and when they’re not afraid to adjust those workouts in response to new information. Paying attention to athletes’ physical and psychological status and focusing on moderate, gradual training goals allows you to distinguish between an ordinary, healthy adaptive response and the potentially devastating effects of overtraining.


Anaerobic Training

by Leave a Comment

As we near the start of cross country season, I thought I would post a couple of videos from Scott Christensen, USTFCCCA Lead Endurance Instructor and experienced high school coach. Coach Christensen’s teams have been ranked in the Top 10 nationally 6 times, won multiple state championships , and been named Senior Team Leader for World Cross Country Team. He is without doubt a coach many of us could learn from.

Hopefully most of your runners have been putting in some great work this summer and have improved their aerobic fitness levels. Now as they return to school in a few weeks, you can begin to work of their anaerobic fitness.

Aerobic training can be improved by putting in many miles and results in structural changes in the body. This requires a time frame of approximately 20-24 weeks. Anaerobic training causes biochemical changes.  While anaerobic training requires less time, it still takes 9-11 weeks to make the necessary changes for maximal performance. For this reason it is important that coaches do not wait very long into their season to begin anaerobic training.

In the two clips below from Complete Track and Field Coach Christensen discusses anaerobic training. In the –  first video he shares an example of a 9 day Multi-Paced Microcycle and in the second an example of a speed workout.

Both of these clips are taken from Coach Christensen’s Complete Cross Country Training Program.  The program consists of four parts:

Part 1 – Aerobic Training

Part 2 – Application of Speed and Strength Training

Part 3 – Influence of the Peaking Period

Part 4 – Psychological Issues, Inventories and Motivation

The YouTube videos below have sound, so please make sure that your sound is turned on and that you have access to the site. Please note that some schools block access to YouTube.

 

Cross Country Training – Anaerobic training

 

How to Develop Speed in Distance Runners

 

If you are interested in learning more about Coach Christensen’s program  Click on the image or link below.

Complete High School Cross Country Training


Barefoot Running: What You Should Know

by 5 Comments

This article was provided by Training and  Conditioning

 

By Dr. Daniel Cipriani

Daniel Cipriani, PhD, PT, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Physical Therapy at Schmid College of Science and Technology at Chapman University, where he teaches courses in biomechanics and kinesiology. He can be reached at: cipriani@chapman.edu or follow him on Twitter @danielcip3.

The popularity of barefoot running has once again reared its dirty foot. From competitive track and field athletes to weekend warriors, more and more runners want to feel the earth underneath them while they train. This “trend” actually has a long history.

When the running fitness craze took off in the 1960s, a small but very dedicated group opted to run without shoes. This practice gained international attention after the barefoot running success of athletes such as Abebe Bikila (1960 Olympic gold medalist in the marathon) and Bruce Tulloh (1962 European Championships gold medalist in the 5000 meters).

Two decades later, the world was captivated by Zola Budd (1985 and 1986 World Cross-Country champion) who mainly ran barefoot. Her success revitalized the notion that running shoeless might have performance benefits, and many gave it a try in the mid to late 1980s.

In recent years, there has been another push to trade running sneakers for bare soles thanks in part to the book Born to Run by Christopher McDougall, published in 2009. McDougall argues that the human species is engineered for long distance running (hunters would run their faster prey into a fatigued state to allow capture without the use of weaponry) and compares the incredible distance running performances of today’s athletes to current-day tribes in Mexico and Africa who run either barefoot or in nothing more than a sandal. McDougall likens barefoot running to a sense of freedom and liberation from modern-day constraints.

Another significant factor contributing to the growth in popularity of barefoot running is the development of “minimalist” style shoes (such as Vibram’s FiveFinger, New Balance’s Minimus, and Sockwa’s G2/G3). These have allowed runners to try near-barefoot training without risking injury to the plantar surface of the foot. Current research suggests that running in a minimalist shoe not only replicates the mechanics of barefoot running, but may be more efficient.

Thus the big question arises: Is barefoot and minimalist running better than shod running (with shoes)? Is it more efficient? Is it safer? Thanks to the research of epidemiologists, biomechanists, and sports medicine specialists, we are much closer to answering these questions–although there is still more research to be done.

LANDING PATTERNS
Before we can even begin to compare the pros and cons of each style, it is important to understand the mechanics of running with shoes vs. without. Running barefoot and in minimalist shoes involves a different technique than running with traditional shoes. This results in differences in foot position at initial landing, stride length, cadence, knee flexion, and ground reaction forces.

All barefoot runners and most minimalist shoe runners land using the midfoot or forefoot portion as the primary contact area on initial impact. Unlike shod runners, the heel touches the ground barely, rarely, or not all. Landing this way, the athlete’s ankle begins contact with the ground in a position of slight plantarflexion. The vast majority of shod runners, on the other hand, land with the ankle neutral or slightly dorsiflexed and with the heel as the first point of contact.

Mid/forefoot landing requires the use of a shorter stride and a higher cadence compared with the traditional heel-strike runner. This leads to slightly greater knee flexion of mid/forefoot strikers, particularly during the stance component of running.

In looking at ground reaction forces, it has been demonstrated that the mid/forefoot striker experiences a reduced impact force at initial contact. This is due to the action of the ankle joint, which undergoes a rapid dorsiflexion motion to absorb the impact with the ground. The heel-strike runner absorbs this force through very limited subtalar joint eversion and knee flexion, resulting in a higher and more rapid impact force.

However, it is important to note that the overall peak ground reaction forces are very similar between a heel-strike runner and a forefoot-strike runner. The slight difference is that the forefoot runner does not have an initial spike in ground reaction force.

INJURY RISK
It’s no secret that injury risk for runners is high and many who have parted with their traditional shoes are seeking a way to lower their chances of injury. Research on injury rates for shod runners is bountiful, showing that 75 percent of these athletes will sustain some form of injury. Because mid/forefoot strikers experience less impact on initial contact with the ground, it seems to follow that this should reduce the prevalence of injury.

A recent survey study performed on military personnel examined this idea and suggests that midfoot and forefoot striking might be a way to protect against injuries. In a sample of 900 runners, the authors found that those who self-reported to be mid/forefoot strikers (69 percent) had less injuries than those who self-reported as heel strikers (31 percent). Unfortunately, self-report of striking style is highly unreliable, with other research showing that nearly 70 percent of runners who claim to be mid/forefoot strikers are actually heel-strike runners. Another study examining more than 1,000 marathon runners, which videotaped their running form at a mid-point location in the race, noted that over 90 percent landed on their heels.

A smaller study looking at a sample of very select competitive runners (36 heel strikers and 16 forefoot strikers) found a two to three times greater incidence of injury in the heel-strike runners compared with mid/forefoot strikers. While these results are certainly promising, the small number of subjects and highly specific sample makes it difficult to apply these findings to all runners.

One theory to explain the possible reduction in injury risk relates to the differences in ground reaction forces. As mentioned earlier, mid/forefoot landing eliminates the initial spike in ground reaction force that is seen with heel-strike runners. Advocates of barefoot running postulate that this initial impact is a cause of injury in shod runners.

However, research has not found any relationship between ground reaction forces and injury risk (primarily stress fractures) in runners. A study examining the correlation between these forces and the incidence of stress fractures in runners found no substantial differences. In addition, the bulk of the ground reaction forces (shod or barefoot) occur during the full loading and propulsive aspects of running, which are similar between the running styles. Unfortunately, there have not been any studies to date examining ground reaction forces and the multitude of injuries observed in runners, including tendonitis around the foot, ankle, and knee, as well as anterior knee pain.

Barefoot enthusiasts have also speculated that running shoes impede foot proprioception and reduce foot strength, which could leave the athlete more susceptible to injury. However, there is no research to support or refute these anecdotal claims. Nor is there any research to support the notion that greater foot strength contributes to injury prevention.

Overall, running shoes have not yet been shown to increase or decrease injury risk. In fact, the rate of running injuries reported in the literature has not changed over the past 40 years, despite all of the advances made to sneakers. There are a few biomechanics studies that suggest a modern running shoe might contribute to the pronation motion at the foot, rather than control for this motion. And since excessive relative pronation is associated with injury risk, there is certainly a need for further research to test this theory.

Although we know a great deal about the injury prevalence in shod runners, we do not know the rates or types of injuries of barefoot runners, due to the lack of research on the topic. Beyond the obvious plantar foot skin injuries, anecdotal evidence reports an increased risk for metatarsal stress fractures and Achilles tendonitis. However, it is not clear if the incidence rate of these injuries is less or greater than that of shod runners.

The good news is that research is starting to pick up on barefoot running. In March, a team of researchers reported they found that running on the ball of the foot places greater stress on the metatarsals and could potentially lead to stress fracture development. MRIs revealed that runners transitioning to minimalist shoes had greater increases in bone marrow edema in their feet and more stress injuries than those in sneakers.

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS
Beyond injury risk, many athletes want to know if there are any training or performance benefits to going minimal or barefoot. Those who have made the switch often say they feel they are running faster and getting a better workout. Many also report feeling less “beat up” after a run. However, research has yet to find anything to back this up.

In terms of energy cost, limited research on this topic has found no significant differences between barefoot and shod running. The benefit of less mass (no weight of the shoe) during barefoot running is lost because of greater muscle work from using the ankle plantarflexor muscles (the gastrocnemius and soleus) to absorb the initial impact and produce propulsion.

Running in a minimalist shoe, however, does provide a slight energy advantage. The same research that examined energy cost between shod and barefoot runners also included a group with minimalist shoes, which were found to be the most efficient, albeit by only a slight amount. It is possible that the shoe material, along with the running mechanics, contributed to this advantage. Still, the energy advantage did not translate into improved performance.

Another area to examine is temporal and spatial differences, since the mid/forefoot landing results in a shorter stride and a higher cadence compared with the traditional heel-strike runner. Barefoot/minimalist shoe runners often report feeling less stressed while training by taking shorter, faster strides. But we do not know if this translates into improved performance.

One possible advantage is the fact that, as speed of running increases, the tendency to run on the midfoot or forefoot also increases. At speeds approaching sprinting, the runner will use an entirely forefoot landing style. Thus, training in a minimalist shoe would likely help prepare a runner to develop faster running form.

A recently published study refuted the notion that all barefoot runners land on the ball of the foot, finding that increased speed leads to adopting a forefoot running style, while runners landed on their heels while going slowly. This supports the notion that faster running is facilitated by forefoot landing mechanics, but that barefoot running does not always translate to forefoot landings.

MAKING THE TRANSITION
If your athletes want to make the switch to barefoot running or minimalist shoes, how can you help? First, figure out if the move is right for them. Although there is a lack of research to indicate who is best suited for barefoot running, it is safe to suggest that any current runner likely has the potential to train in a minimalist shoe or even barefoot.

With that said, individuals who have extremely flat feet (excessive pronators) should pay particular care with progression to a barefoot style of running. An individual with a “high arch,” however, is already somewhat programmed to the stress of forefoot landing and might make this transition a bit more readily. Regardless, the best plan is a gradual, careful progression from a heel-strike to a forefoot-strike running form.

To begin, instead of tossing away traditional running shoes, athletes should slowly introduce barefoot or minimalist running to their training. This allows the athlete time to develop different movement skills associated with midfoot and/or forefoot striking while running. It also gives the skin on the bottom of the foot the time necessary to adapt to these new forces. Frequent barefoot walking before beginning barefoot running is a great place to start.

It is also important to explain the changes in running form. The athlete will need to adopt a short stride and high cadence while remaining in a more upright running posture. This will require slightly greater knee flexion prior to initial contact. The athlete will need to consciously avoid heel strike, attempting to land with the foot flat on the ground or biased toward the forefoot.

These form changes will place a much greater mechanical demand on the metatarsals and metatarsal heads, as well as the Achilles tendon and calf musculature. Preparatory activities to condition the foot and calf musculature can include backward running and uphill running. Backward running has been shown to improve function of the calf muscles, and it requires a forefoot landing pattern and greater knee flexion at initial contact. Training on a treadmill or track are the safest environments for this form of running. Running and walking briskly uphill requires a forefoot strike pattern, greater knee flexion, shorter stride, and greater muscle effort of the calf musculature, as well.

Before the athlete takes off with no shoes, he or she should try wearing true minimalist shoes such as the Vibram FiveFinger sock or Sockwa’s G2/G3 shoe-socks for a period of time. Beginning with some form of foot protection, while avoiding the feel of traditional shoes, might improve the athlete’s transition to a forefoot striker and eventually barefoot runner.

The final step is to condition the skin on the bottom of the foot to withstand the abrasive forces encountered with ground contact. This will likely require several months of gradual dosage of fully barefoot running. Again, barefoot walking is a sensible place to start.

Recommendations range from 10 to 15 minutes of barefoot running three days a week, to exposure of five to 10 minutes a day, gradually increasing barefoot running time at a rate of 10 percent per week. And of course, selecting the safest terrain for barefoot running, free of litter and debris, as well as training with sufficient daylight to see the running surface are critical.

Most important to remember is that, regardless of footwear, the predominant risk factors for injury remain excess mileage and training errors. Too many miles puts athletes at greater risk for injury, and any runner (particularly a novice) is at increased risk when training is not conducted properly. In fact, any major change, whether it is an increase in distance or speed work or running on new terrain, ups the chance of injury.

Sidebar: Feeling the Floor
While most of the discussion on minimalist shoes is about how they affect runners, it is interesting to speculate how they might impact athletes in other sports. One question is whether they provide an athlete with improved proprioception.

Consider the dancer, who performs highly dynamic activities in minimal footwear. These athletes complete demanding foot-to-ground movements including jumping, landing, twisting, and spinning. Interestingly, they demonstrate a significantly lower incidence of injuries to the knee, particularly the ACL, when compared with court sport athletes.

It could be argued that because dancers choreograph their movements, they are well prepared for every jump and landing. However, research has demonstrated that the difference in landing styles between men and women basketball players (leading to higher rates of ACL injuries in females) does not exist between dancers. Female and male dancers exhibit similar hip and knee movement when landing, which protects the knee from injury.

Could it be that training in a minimalist shoe or barefoot provides athletes with improved proprioception and foot-knee-hip interactions compared with athletes who train and compete in standard athletic shoes? Research on this hypothesis would be interesting.

Sidebar: Footwear Overview

Type: Traditional
Features:
– Heel material thicker than forefoot material (heel rise)
– Supportive heel counter and longitudinal arch
– Heavier in weight
Common Brands: Asics, Saucony, New Balance, Mizuno, Nike, adidas

Type: Minimalist shoe
Features:
– Heel material equal in thickness or slightly thicker than forefoot material (less than 4 mm difference)
– Minimal or no supportive materials in heel or arch area
– Lightweight (6-8 oz)
Common Brands: New Balance Minimus, Mizuno, Saucony

Type: “Barefoot” footwear
Features:
– Sock-like with no heel wedge
– Thin, abrasion-resistant sole
– Fits like a sock
Common Brands: Vibram FiveFingers, Sockwa G2/G3 or Amphibean